Mid-length or carbine?

Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kamagong

Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2006
Messages
866
Being a firm believer in the "two is one, one is none" philosopy I just ordered the parts for my 2nd AR build. My first AR was a 16" carbine, a mixmaster with a LMT lower and BCM upper and bolt carrier group. I wanted something a little different this time so this time I chose a Noveske 16" Recce upper. I'm matching it up with a Noveske lower, and am going to use a G&R Tactical LPK and Magpul MOE furniture to complete the rifle.

Once I am finished I will most likely use one rifle as my primary weapon and set the other one aside as a backup. My question is this, which one should I use as my primary? I know that mid-lengths are considered more reliable because of the gas system. On the other hand, carbines have been proven in battle. It's a bit of a dilemma, and I'm just not sure what to decide.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
If you have a 16" barrel, there's no reason to go for a CAR system unless you're mounting a grenade launcher. Middys have lower operating pressures/less stress on everything that moves, longer sight radius, and with the A2, maintains the correct distance between bayo lug and FH to mount a sticker.

The CAR gas system makes sense on a 14.5" barrel, because the bayo lug's in the same relative position as at the end of a 20" A2. Plus, there's the whole "grenade launcher" tidbit.

If you can't tell, I like my middy :D

ETA: I've seen a few pictures of soldiers who don't run across grenade launchers in their occupation who swap uppers for some Larue/Noveske mid-length combos (supposedly some kinda grey area, since it's not a "firearm"), so those things are also battle-proven.....just not officially :eek:
 
+1 for middie. When my Noveske Recce build is done, it will be my go-to and my LMT Franken-carbine will be demoted to benchwarmer/backup status.
 
if you go with the middy.... I suspect you'll find your barrel selection more limited (I did, but that's was a while ago).

If you want a carbine that's well ballanced, don't get a HB middy. They are definately front heavy.

One of these days I'm going to turn mine down and approximate the gov't profile.
 
BCM makes a "govt profile" middy... I have one and like it. Overall I do prefer the midlength on a 16" barrel. And I haven't been shooting shooting it that long.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Shoot them both! Neither of those is "collectible", so there is no reason to relegate either to safe queen status.
 
It's my understanding that the government will be moving away from "government profile" barrels. What will we call them now?

Personally, I like the balance of the regular mid-lengths out there (which are HB). I have a 20" HB; that's a bit muzzle heavy.
 
I love my HB middy. It fits my shooting style. I like to keep my front hand in front of the mag well. (on my AR anyway) The rifle balances perfectly on my front hand, and it allows me to keep my elbow close to my torso. Personal pref I guess. Personally I like the middy length because it seems that less crap gets blown back into the receiver than the M4 length and it gives a longer sight radius. There are also full length uppers with
16" barrells available. I think they are called a "dissipator". I have never shot these but they look cool. J/K.
 
A 16" mid-length will also fit a standard GI bayonet perfectly. Better to have it and not need it, than to...:D
 
LOL

Actually, I think a 20" HB balances quite well, and makes a great rifle for iron-sight shooting from the various positions. But it seems that a lot of AR buyers -- including the military -- these days aren't looking for rifles, really, and that's understandable.
 
Whenever possible you want to go with a longer gas system. They are softer shooting and run at lower pressures.
 
I chose the midlength over the carbine for the reasons stated above and have been very happy. There has gotten to be a pretty good selection of middy barrels since I first bought mine. Kamagong, you are just going to have to shoot them and let us know what you think.
 
I prefer my rifles a bit front heavy, makes them much more stable and comfortable to carry and shoot.

My shooting technique is developed from shooting alot of heavy barreled bolt action precision rifles, which involves very little forceful contact with the rifle. This gives me trouble whenever I have to qualify with an M4, because if you don't muscle down on that little thing, shot groups string all over the place.
 
The carbine is way better and will provide a much higher degree of clout at range since that is what is on "The Chart". If you aren't teir 1 Milspec you ain't s***!

Just kidding... I definitely prefer a midlength... better sight radius, more room for the hands, better fulcrum point if shooting from a bipod, lower operating pressure. My RRA midlength extracts so consistantly I could just about set a coffee can on the ground and have all the brass fly right into the opening if shooting from a bench. Maybe I could... have to try that someday.
 
I'm a sucker for the carbine. I value as compact a weapon as possible...and the ballistic tradeoff doesn't seem tremendous, from what admittedly little I know. I want to have three AR type rifles - two carbines, and a 20".


One thing I'd never own is the AR pistol...I can't really rationalize that one to be honest.
 
I'm a sucker for the carbine. I value as compact a weapon as possible...and the ballistic tradeoff doesn't seem tremendous
Click to expand...
I didn't realize that carbines were substantially more compact than a rifle with mid-length upper, nor that they had much of a ballistic trade-off. Would you care to elaborate about the difference in length between using a carbine upper and a mid-length upper like the Noveske 16" Recce the OP mentions?
 
Civilian carbine and mid-length barrels are usually the same length... 16". That total length may or may not include a permanently mounted flash suppressor.

The term "mid-length" refers to a longer gas system than the carbine length gas system, but does not imply a longer barrel length.

Now there are also 18" barrels, but again, the term "mid-length" refers to the length of the gas system, not the barrel length.
 
To anyone who factors "softer shooting" into their decision making process on a .223 setup, let me also advise you....

If you let your milk toast sit for an extra 15 minutes before eating, you will find it much easier going.

:cool:
 
interesting thread.

im going with a pencil barrl, rifle gas, A1 stock, cutt barrel back to 17.5, presto=dissipator.
 
meef said:
To anyone who factors "softer shooting" into their decision making process on a .223 setup, let me also advise you....

If you let your milk toast sit for an extra 15 minutes before eating, you will find it much easier going.

:cool:
Click to expand...
It's not as much that it's a softer recoil as it is less stressful on the rifle itself. It's a better system if you want to extend the life of your upper. Also, a softer actual/felt recoil is less distracting and makes it easier to stay on target. If there were no tangible benefits, I would agree with your comment.
 
A post from January resurrected. Hmmm... I'll play!

I suggest MID-LENGTH to reduce the amount of strain on your support hand wrist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

nwilliams
  • Locked
My new Novekse N4 build
Replies
6
Views
316
Girodin
G
R
  • Locked
AR-15 mid-length carbine build. (VLOG)
Replies
14
Views
742
RX-178
R
W
  • Locked
Upper for lightweight AR build
Replies
0
Views
534
wnycollector
W
F
  • Locked
New BCM/Spikes Middy photos
Replies
10
Views
860
possum
P
B
  • Locked
New middy AR
Replies
2
Views
256
Lonerider357
L
Back
Top