monolithic uppers: good or bad?

[zachsm]

Most of the new rifles coming out today have a monolithic upper and have a rail all the way across the top of the gun. While this is the preferred method to have a rail, it must be more costly to do it this way.

The question is, would you rather pay more for the monolithic rail or have a cheaper, partially railed like the standard ar15 upper?

 

[NickEllis]

I believe it removes any problem of unwanted rotation in the frame/upper. This becomes a problem with backup sights that are mounted on the rail, rather than on the barrel (i.e., if the rail rotated, it would take your sites/optics off zero).

Not an expert in AR stuff though.

 

[KW]

I've often wondered the same thing. Is one monolithic AR15 upper and two barrels really worth more then two AR15 uppers? Because the monolithic platform and barrels will certainly cost more then two uppers. I can see the appeal of swapping between a short CQB barrel and a long precision barrel. But aren't you going to want to change optics for those two roles? And if you're changing optics, then what's the advantage again? It's not as if it's faster to swap the barrel, optics, bipod, etc on and off vs. just swapping the upper with the two push pins. And are both barrels really going to shoot to the same POA anyway?

 

[waterhouse]

When I bought mine I originally planned on swapping barrels. I owned it for over a year and never swapped the barrel.

They also allow you to do things like easily put a red dot and magnifier on the rail without using some sort of cantilever mount. I had no need for this feature either.

They are an interesting design, and have some pluses, but I sold mine and would not pay more for ones in the future. As KW suggested, I'd rather just have 2 separate uppers.