Why AR barrels are thinner under the handguards

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep. The barrel in the first link is plenty heavy for good shootability. If it was .650 under the hand guards it would be too heavy for a battle rifle you'll be carrying a lot. IMHO

I have one like you linked in both links. One is slightly front end heavy and a hair more shootable, and one is lighter, slightly easier to carry, and slightly less shootable.

I am not sure which one I like better yet, but am leaning toward the first one, not the lightweight. Both are nice though.

I do not want a heavy barrel for anything but a target gun.
 
+1
I have a pencil barrel Colt that does anything you could ask of it.

My shooting pard bought a heavy barrel carbine last year and traded it off a month later because it was too heavy to carry coyote hunting.

rc
 
The cut out under the handguards on a 20" barrel is for attaching the M203, as on the M4 with the 14.5" the cut out is also needed in front of the front sight, because of the difference in lengths. As mentioned, a heavy barreled AR will be, well, heavy. It's up to you if you want to hump the extra weight. IMO the standard barrel will shoot fine, I have the heavy barrel DPMS o a flattop rifle, shoots good, too.
 
M4, heavy?.....I have difficulty wrapping my head around that, regardless of barrel diameter. M240B, now that's a heavy rig to hump up the mountains or clear grape rows with in Afghanistan. In all fairness though, shoot ability is definitely affected by having the balance point shifted when dealing with a full contour barrel on the M4 platform. I like my pea shooters mil spec, they make plenty of noise while the M240 gets set up and the M203s start walking rounds on target.
 
I just received my PSA upper a few days ago to complete a PSA lower I purchased earlier. I am quite happy with the quality, but it's much heavier than I thought it would be. It's much closer in weight to my FAL than my M1 carbine.

In retrospect, I should have opted for the lightweight upper as I really don't plan on extended rapid fire with the thing.

I don't know, I guess the extra weight deducts from the carbine's handiness, but I'm still quite happy with my AR. PSA seems to turn out good stuff.
 
I've got an HBAR profile BCM mid-length rifle. "Heavy" is a relative term in the AR would. With a Comp M2 optic, Troy MRF rails, Magpul furniture and sling, it weighs around 8lbs, but I wouldn't call it "heavy" for the breed. Is it heavier than an M4 profile or pencil barrel would be? Sure, but if you had to hump one over hill and over dale all day, you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference by the END of that day. :eek:

RIFLE1-1.gif
 
In retrospect, I should have opted for the lightweight upper as I really don't plan on extended rapid fire with the thing.

I don't know, I guess the extra weight deducts from the carbine's handiness, but I'm still quite happy with my AR. PSA seems to turn out good stuff.

I went down the HBAR road with my first carbine. I learned that for me, the HBAR just doesn't make any sense on a rifle that is intended to be lithe and easy to swing between multiple targets. The balance point is way to far forward for my liking. HBARs make more sense on pure target guns with fixed stocks, IMO, where all out accuracy is paramount.

Now I'm using a pencil barrel BCM middy, and absolutely love it. Balances quite a bit like my M-1 carbine, with the balance point falling right between my hands. It may give up a hair in accuracy to a HBAR, but on a KISS carbine it is a very worthwhile tradeoff IMO.


DSC05202.jpg
 
The barrels are made that way because of all the whinners that complain their gun is too heavy. If a 7 lb rifle is too heavy for you, you better start thinking about re-evaluating your lifestyle....chris3
 
I'm sorry for adding nothing to the conversation, but i also chuckle when people complain about a "heavy" AR. IMHO, a firearm doesn't qualify as heavy until it hits about 10lbs+....but i am definitely not the norm, as i was reminded the other night when a friend of mine hoisted my PTR to his shoulder, held it in firing position for a few seconds, then lowered it with a gasp, wondering aloud how i could be comfortable shooting such a big, barrel-heavy rifle. He prefers an M4-gery. But i DO shoot it comfortably, standing offhand 20-rd strings, and prefer to reload and carry it with me when i check targets.
But then, to each their own, everyone has their own fatigue threshold, and when you get past that point, your equipment can't make up for the reduced proficiency of a fatigued shooter. If your intended purpose calls for you to lug a rifle around all day, then make an accurate shot when it presents itself, the few ounces you save with a lighter barrel just might make the difference...
 
i like shooting my Garand in standing position. I guess ill wait for the heavy carbine length barrel.
 
I'm sorry for adding nothing to the conversation, but i also chuckle when people complain about a "heavy" AR. IMHO,

If a 7 lb rifle is too heavy for you, you better start thinking about re-evaluating your lifestyle

Heavy is relative.

It is not that something is too heavy per se. Rather, a lighter gun for certain uses offers advantages. Some of these advantages extend beyond just carrying the gun.

Total weight is not the only issue. Balance is important as well.
 
My 16" carbine has a skinny, original contour barrel. It weighs, sans a magazine, 5.7lbs.

The weight isn't a big deal for me. I carried an M16A2 and never complained about the weight, after all. But did buy it thinking that there were some advantages to a true lightweight carbine.

One is that some people don't like heavy rifles. I know some people like that. They will shoot an original-equipment, light 10/22 happily, but would balk at my heavy barreled Savage that weighs a good bit more. They complain about having to hold up a 9 or 10 lb rifle, but not a 7 lb (with a magazine) rifle.

Another is that, for handiness and quickness, I've yet to handle a 5.56 rifle I like as well as my svelte little featherweight, even if I *should* prefer to show off my manly, muscled build with a heavier rifle. It isn't the most stable & accurate target rig, but it isn't intended to be.
 
I've read a number of reasons as to the "reason" for the gov't profile barrel but none of them make sense to me. If extra weight is to be added to a barrel it should be at the rear to act as a heat sink. The pencil barrel is definitely the way to go for a semi auto carbine. The rest of the world seems to have this figured out.
 
FWIW, I can tell a big difference between a HBAR & Gov Profile when transitioning between targets. The HBAR moves a little slower and has more momentum, making it harder to stop on target. YMMV.
 
Does the thinner barrels under the handguards flexes more when shooting rapid semi auto fire vs the heavy one ? Im talking of the 16 inch long M 4 barrels. If so, I ll take the heavy any time .
 
It is my recollection that the original AR-15 barrels were relatively thin and lightweight all the way out to the muzzle. Complaints about the military M16 barrels getting bent in service were answered by new barrels thickened in the unsupported part of the barrel from the handguard to the muzzle, but having the original thin profile under the handguard, perhaps for compatibility with existing inventory of handguards and barrel tools.
 
I'm pretty sure the reason started out for M203 attachment support compatability,
as first mentioned by briansmithwins. The M203 attachment was designed for the thinner barrel profile, and has never been changed.

The story I read about bent thinner barrels from VN era was GI's using them to break steel straps on shipping crates (in the absence of a better tool).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top