Why does nobody seem to like full sized ARs anymore?

There's no point.

>>32545845
I see like 5 people on /k/ every evening that likes them, and a lot of the super high speed ARs are 20", you just can hardly tell because a free float tube handguard doesn't give as good of a reference to size.

I do, I just fucking hate the A2/A4 because they're poorly thought out pieces of shit.

>>32545856

How do you figure?

People have multiple carbon copy carbines often times, what's the point of that? Why not some variety?

>>32545870

>high speed 20" ARs

Seems like an oxymoron.

>>32545884

>they're poorly thought out pieces of shit.

As opposed to the A1/A3?

>>32545845
Whiny cunts who can't handle an extra four inches.

Now be a good little slut and beg for more while AR-sama pounds your cervix with his massive, 20-inch schlong.

>>32545845
special forces types almost as a rule avoid long range combat (why shoot it when you can have the air force bomb it instead), and because they operate away from supply lines have to have maximum weight savings, so they only carry the largest rifle that will let them kill at close quarters.

The military's fixation on the M4 is simply because it's more comfortable to carry inside of the current APCs in use.

Since the civvie crowd sees the HIGH-SPEED LOW DRAG operators on the news using carbines instead of rifles, everyone wants a friggin' carbine. While on the other hand, you do see the serious USPSA and multi-gun shooters going for 18-20" rifles now because of the increased velocity leading to increased power factors, and the marines trying to do an end-run around Congress so they an adopt the M27 as their issued rifle, which has at least a mid-length gas system.

Tbh, a 20" rifle with a adjustable stock would be ideal for most purposes.

>>32545906

I figured the high speed low drag OPERATOR thing was the draw to carbines, but when people stop and remember they don't personally have air support, the full sized rifle seems like it should regain its appeal.

>>32545845
There are alot of non-combat arms units that still have them. Those all serve as office poles anyway so upgrading is a total waste of money.

I kinda like them. The only reason to own a short barrel is if you are wearing body armor or you want to look cool. I recommend them to broke friends because sometimes you can find them for cheap.

>>32545845
Because that loss of ~150 fps isnt going to keep your average shooter from hitting a piece of paper or a coyote from short to moderate distances.

File: 20161231_202811.jpg (4MB, 5312x2988px)

4MB, 5312x2988px

Most people want something that looks more tactical. It even makes it hard to find a 20" AR off the shelf.

>>32545884
>pieces of shit.
much like your opinions, anon.

>>32545906
This is a pretty bullshit answer, desu.
>special forces types almost as a rule avoid long range combat
There is more than one type of SFU. Some specialize in long range.
>because they operate away from supply lines have to have maximum weight savings, so they only carry the largest rifle that will let them kill at close quarters.
Most special forces avoid entering combat at all. When they do have to enter combat, they use weapons specific to that MO. Sometimes they use M4s, sometimes they use AKs, sometimes they use SCARs. It really depends on where they're going and what they're doing. The whole point of a SFU is to adaptable to multiple situations.

It has to do with the military figuring out that soldiers engage and are effective at a distance that doesn't require a full length AR and the weight reduction means that the average soldier can have even more overpriced useless shit strapped to him

>>32545845
1.) Muh Operator/Military coolness
2.) ease of space and movement in a home defense scenario inside a house/apartment
3.) Muh ounces

>>32545955
That's what I have. Most aesthetic of any AR

>>32545845
16 inch is the new 20 inch

>>32545845
I served with a full size m16A4 in the moreen curps. I liked it. But for my civilian purposes kind of a broom in the room.

Bought an m4 when I got out. Sue me.

>>32545918
that's why 18"-ers are starting to get popular among USPSA/3-gun types. Not to mention that it's very hard to find an AR with a 20" these days that is 4150 steel, and has the correct 1/7 twist.

Because the actual, real life effective range of 5.56 is well surpassed by the capability of a 14/16 inch barrel. A 20 inch will get a slow moving, non lethal .22 bullet slightly farther where it can still do nothing at maybe an extra 100 yards distance

That said, 18 inch 4 life

>>32545845
Velocity gains are pretty low.

>>32545906
>Tbh, a 20" rifle with a adjustable stock would be ideal for most purposes.
No, it wouldn't.

>>32545906

is desu unfiltered now?

desu

Tbh

>>32545845

mechanization of infantry (esp vs low tech enemies) leads to the need for small

more high tech equipment to carry and wear means rifle could get small

>>32545906
20" barrels =/= dedicated long rang rifle

>>32545906
>Tbh, a 20" rifle with a adjustable stock would be ideal for most purposes.

Sure, as long as you stay out of buildings and vehicles. Then you're fine.

>>32546267
you can operate innahouse with a 20" barrel. It's 4 extra inches.

>>32546203
You are correct, it is sub optimal for operating out of a car.

The biggest advantage of 18" and 20" barrels is rifle length gas.

>>32546346
Would be easier to use a 20" rifle in a car over something like a Stryker or a Brad.

>>32546346
Not only that, it has no reason to exist with stuff like Mk262 around.

>>32545896
A1 was functionally fine and only needed new new handguards and a different twist barrel. Or are you really going to defend the A2 stock, gov profile barrel and target sights of the A2? A4 is more of the same bit heavier and even more pointless now that body armor is a thing. The Canadians got it right with the C7.
>>32545961
Not an argument friend.

>>32546403
>20" have no reason to exist because of a round that still performs better in longer barrels

>>32546417

There's nothing wrong with the A2 stock

>>32546241
Senpai desu baka

>>32546452
Heh after some fun with ar500 and a 20 incher with m193 I have no problems with it at all

I joined in 05 when we were still phasing out the a2. The m4 is way easier to control/handle especially when in vehicles. The adjustable stock makes it easier to handle for shorter people too. Nobody is shooting over 500m anyway and 80% of infantry troops can't shoot for shit anyway.

T. Ten years active

File: download (39).jpg (4KB, 258x195px)

4KB, 258x195px

>>32546483
Speak for yourself.

Marines qual at 500 yards. I know because I did and helped others.

Combat wise it usually happens at 100 to 300 yards.

the 5.56 has terrible performance at long range, it's fantastic at short/medium range, but the actual terminal effect at ranges over 600 yards is crap.
Long barreled ARs are good for plinking and target shooting but nothing else. They handle worse and weigh more than their shorter variants and give nothing of value back.
If you want long range performance in a package you can easily carry: go with a 6.5 or 30cal.

>>32546417
What is wrong with the A2 stock?

I joined in 01 when we were still phasing out the Garand. The Gewehr 98 is way easier to control/handle especially when in vehicles. The adjustable stock makes it easier to handle for shorter people too. Nobody is shooting over 1000m anyway and 100% of infantry troops can't shoot for shit anyway.

T. Thirty years active

>>32546453
>>32546520
Pssst

He's a manlet

>>32546483
I was one of those weirdos that the a2 just fit perfectly especially with the kpot to carrying handle + good cheekweld. I did not enjoy the m4 but it did make optics and various lasers, lights, grips etc easier to use. For what we do now yes the m4 makes more sense but I can understand some wanting the prior setup

>>32546520


too long for mechanized operations / body armor and gear/ manlets / firing from non-ideal posture/ CQB

>>32546544
But I end up using adjustable stocks all the way out anyway, anything less than A1 length is awkward as fucc

>>32545906

20 inch barrel for Sig MCX when

>>32546539
Poor soul.

>>32546509
>Long barreled ARs are good for plinking and target shooting but nothing else. They handle worse and weigh more than their shorter variants and give nothing of value back.

How to identify someone who has never shot an AR.

File: mk7 rail.jpg (47KB, 699x347px)

47KB, 699x347px

I'm putting together a CMP national match/3 gun rifle. 18 inch 223 wylde barrel, pic related, Acog 4x32, full ambi billet lower and upper, Geissele SNA, A2 stock, m16 BCG. With a bunch of other good internals.

I'm trying to build an accurate durable working rifle. Only thing is it's gonna maybe be 11 pounds, maybe more

>>32546526
I'm calling bullshit on this.

I'm 30 and too old to be here. I don't believe a man who's done 30 years would post here. I have an excuse, I'm an oldfag who 4channed in 2005 and joined in 2007.

File: just slather my shit in syrup.jpg (308KB, 1600x1200px)

308KB, 1600x1200px

>>32545906
>Tbh, a 20" rifle with a adjustable stock would be ideal for most purposes.

This is what the Canadian Army uses, and you are right in most circumstances that normal infantry would operate under. The C7A2 pictured here is a little front-heavy as a result of the adjustable buttstock and the optic though.

>20" AR = fixed stock A2/A4 clone

no

>>32545955
pls rotate

>>32546526

El oh el

>>32546526
I joined in 94 when we were still phasing out the Kentucky Rifle. The Model 1795 Musket is way easier to control/handle especially when in carriages. The adjustable stock makes it easier to handle for shorter people too. Nobody is shooting over 1000m anyway and 100% of infantry troops can't shoot for shit anyway.
>T. one-hundred and thirty years active

File: 14199946915061.jpg (397KB, 2197x1465px)

397KB, 2197x1465px

>>32546453
For some people it's fine. For others it isn't. I know big guys who still don't like the full size stock when wearing armor.
>>32546539
Psst, you're a faggot

>>32545845
I have a 20"

>>32546563
I don't think building a rifle to take in both national matches and 3 gun is a good idea. They're totally different types of shooting and while the barrel lengths are similar you generally want weight on a match rifle, and don't want weight on a 3 gun rifle.

>>32545896
>As opposed to the A1
I mean if you like shitty barrel profiles, target sights, inferior furniture ergonomics, and one of the worst burst cams ever fielded, all the power to you bud...

>>32546685
USPSA/3gun shooters are going more for 18" and 20" builds because of the velocity improvements giving a huge bonus to power factor

>>32546685
also if you build a high power rifle under the new CMP rules that allows optics, there's a hard weight limit now.

File: jumping 3 gun.jpg (68KB, 621x450px)

68KB, 621x450px

>>32546685
I'm not worried about it. I have shot 3 gun with heavy guns before, specifically in heavy metal. I actually kind of like it. I also don't plan on putting in the lead weights, I've never used them in CMP and don't plan too in the future.

File: CxzTk0PUsAEPE4o.jpg (249KB, 1200x675px)

249KB, 1200x675px

I think a lot of it has to do with media influence. Whether that's video games, movies, TV, news or whatever it is very rare that they are seen with a full size AR, especially when they're dangling all sorts of tacticool crap on it.

People like what the military uses, and once the patents for the AR15 expired and the floodgates for real customization were opened, the military started allowing that too. So once people got a whiff that the muhreens were using M4s and the navy seals were using mallninja shit, that's all people wanted. The other thing is that a lot of people don't really care what the gun is as long as it kind of looks like something.

There is a market for A4geries, it is very niche. To people who really like 20 inch guns and collectors. Colt is the only company to my knowledge who makes a complete off the shelf A4 style rifle, and it's impossible to find. I guess the FN ones are out there too but again, they're hard to find and very expensive.

That said, I'm one of the few who really does like the A4 so I went out and built one, because Colt can't change their production for shit.

>>32546565

Would you need anything in particular to make this work? Or does the rifle length gas system not act wonky with a carbine buffer?

>>32546565
C8 only suffers 50m difrence from the c7 but it is also half a pound heavier

>>32546796
It works fine. The carbine length gas system with a 14.5" barrel and rifle length gas system with a 20" barrel have a similar gas port to muzzle dwell time.

File: 3 gun knock knock.jpg (105KB, 727x527px)

105KB, 727x527px

>>32546735
>there's a hard weight limit now.

what? no there isn't. If there is I can't find it in the new rule book

>>32546703
5.56 can't make major power factor. You would have to use a larger cartridge

>>32546781
>>32545955
stock looks like shit, kys

File: AR15 A2 WASR 1063.png (2MB, 1429x777px)

2MB, 1429x777px

>>32546014
>>32546583

Oops. I already had something very compact with my AK, so when I built the AR i wanted a more traditional size and look.

>>32546703
I think you're greatly overestimating things there

>>32546870
long barrel fags always do.

>>32546703
see >>32546354

>>32546875
audible keks were had

>>32545845
Because AR-15 has evolved as a two in one. It can be a 20" rifle with grenade launcher and it can be an 8" SF carbine.

But more importantly, it has also been an ideal modular mall ninja platform for the last recent Internet years.

At the moment we like the the modular mall ninja SF carbine. So there.

File: civi mod 12.jpg (3MB, 7213x4143px)

3MB, 7213x4143px

>>32546917
yup. rifle length or mid-length are where it's at. Though I don't think i would use a rifle length gas system on anything but a 20 inch plus barrel.

>>32546840
holy shit, they did delete that from the final rules. I could have sworn that they left the weight limit in for service rifles with optics.

Man, that's kinda dumb.

>>32546857
No taste detected.

File: 1478795951619.jpg (57KB, 594x720px)

57KB, 594x720px

>>32547035
what was the limit? do you remember?

>>32547079
the proposed rule was to impose a hard weight limit of 11.5 pounds for service rifles with optics, while allowing iron sighted rifles to remain without optics forever.

>>32546632
they woulda been phasing out the Charleville and the Brown Bess. and the 1795 is just a copy of the Charleville.

>>32546864
what kind of a2 upper did you use?

>>32545845
Because I live in a house

>>32548880
Rock River upper with a Whindam Weaponry barrel

>>32546327
those 4 inches matter when your turning and it catches.

>>32546551
then you are probably not manlet

>>32545906
I like my carbine for HD and as a truck gun.
>also muh ounces

I totally want to buy an 18/20" and start shooting 3gun tho.

>>32551081
By that argument a 10.3" barrel is the best choice.

>>32545845
I like them

>>32546505
You aren't a Marine. I've never met a single Marine that measures distance in yards.

File: IMG_20161128_220433664.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px)

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>32545845
I built an 18" with a2 stock AR because fuck you it's what I wanted.

>>32546520
nothing on its own but when you throw in body armor and a squared off stance thats an extra 2-3 inches

>>32545845
Short answer, manlets. Long answer, manlets are still military majority Infantry.

File: 1482994155681.png (255KB, 503x373px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 503x373px

>>32546564
I'm 56. This place amuses me. So sue me.

Yes 20".

>>32545845
Because everybody falls for the M4 meme. 5.56 performs best out of 20" barrels. If you want a SBR or a carbine length rifle get a 7.62x39 AK.

>>32545918
Civvies aren't stuck fighting with m855, and even in a 14.5" barrel a good softpoint expands well to 500m.

And common, affordable, high quality optics have rendered the loss of sight radius trivial.

>>32546564
67 here. 23 year careerist.

>>32546163
Wtf are you even saying.

File: IMG_8129.jpg (4MB, 3264x2448px)

4MB, 3264x2448px

AETHETICS

All I will say is the 20" gives farther bayonet length, and ever since I bayoneted a possum I need that.

>>32545896

The gain in velocity isn't worth the weight and length.

Longer sight radius doesn't matter when optics are so common.

Are there any other benefits to a 20" barrel?

File: 20%22MustardRace.png (371KB, 565x279px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 565x279px

>>32545906
20" with adjustable stock you say? :D

File: 1479833878955.jpg (269KB, 1183x800px)

269KB, 1183x800px

>>32552003
>Gain in velocity isnt worth it
Nah mate. 3300 FPS is a hell of a lot better than 3000 fps

File: American engages some goatfuckers, Iraq, 2004-05.jpg (94KB, 950x629px)

94KB, 950x629px

>>32552046

File: 223Velocitiesanddropchart.gif (22KB, 630x790px)

22KB, 630x790px

>>32552003
Marginal (but noticeable) increase in component longevity. Rifle length gas is easier on moving parts.

Does this justify a heavier, longer weapon? Most people would say no.

>>32552046
You dont gain 300 fps with an extra 4" a barrel.
The average gain from 16 to 20 is about 90fps.

>>32552066
*of

File: US Soldiers secure world heritage site3.jpg (49KB, 512x339px)

49KB, 512x339px

>>32552066
Shit. I thought it was 100 fps per inch between 16" and 20". Looks like 30

>>32552003
The weight of 2-4 inches of barrel is greatly exaggerated.

It is a choice of a shorter gun or extra velocity, being able to use a brake next to other people and a rifle gas system.

>>32546564
my grandfather is 86 and shitposts here. he was in during the 50's and he saw action in the german whorehouses, and in rome where he got food poisoning from a chicken and the worst spaghetti he ever ate in his life. He's posted pictures of when he was in the service on old timer threads.

go to bed Pop Jack.

>>32545845
I have an 18 inch barreled upper, I like it a lot. I can't have a 14.5 without paying for the privilege anyway so I got a 18" with a rifle length system. Looks pretty sexual and shoots nice.

>>32552066
Rifle gas has more advantages than just less wear.

File: rowsdower.jpg (169KB, 600x458px)

169KB, 600x458px

>>32546564
I made the mistake of posting here when it started and Moot made a link to it in his SA thread. I'm over 30 and this is the only place I bother with because I can call all of you stupid cunts and we'll just laugh about it. The rest of the gun community takes itself dead serious and it sucks all the fun out of it.

When I finally cave and build an AR I'll probably go 20", if anything because you can find those barrels on sale. Leaning towards a new lever action though.

>>32552123
I want to believe, because the idea of a man pushing 90 shitposting on /k/ makes my night. Imagine some autist getting trolled by some geriatric.

>>32552102
It's not the weight, it's the leverage.

>>32552066

Midlength gas system solves this.
>>32552102

See:

>>32552175

The weight is at the farthest end of the gun.

>>32552171
he's probably in better shape than most of us to be honest, and meaner too.

>>32551900
he's saying 5.56 a shit and he prefers 18" barrels

>>32552185
>Midlength gas system solves this.

It helps, but isn't the same. And that is the biggest fuckup of the M16A2, government profile barrels.

18" light barrels with rifle gas are the best of both worlds.

>>32551679
why not A1 length? it's much more comfortable

I desperately want to build an A2 clone, but I gun on a budget and can't find any good deals on the parts.

I hate M4geries.

>>32552185
>The weight is at the farthest end of the gun.

Yes, that's the leverage I was referring to. Torque = force x radius. Holding a rifle creates a moment arm along the bore axis, and the further out the center of gravity is carried by lengthening the heaviest part of the front end, the heavier the rifle is perceived to be.

File: josiah_ar15_D6A0855.jpg (553KB, 1017x1600px)

553KB, 1017x1600px

I still appreciate the A2 stock and all but then I'm not jumping in and out of vehicles and tight spaces or clearing houses just taking studio pictures and blowing my pay checks on guns and ammo to have a good time.

>>32552066
So at 100 yards a 20" has 110 fps with 55grain ammunition over a 16", and 121 fps with 62 grain ammunition.

I am going to guess it is around 150 fps with 77grain ammo.

>>32552171
anyone have that Facebook pic of a grandfather calling his grandson a pussy faggot on Christmas? It's the first thing I imagined.

>>32545845
Gov't profile barrels are full retard and motha fuck quad rails. People all over /k/ have boners for Vietnam style rifles though, and I'm one of them. I'd kill for one but the only manufacturer I can think of who makes a proper one is Fulton Armory and that's like $1200. Also, I'm in Cali.

The 6.5 lbs of an A1 vs the 8 lbs of the A4 is not to be ignored, and if you notice most M4geries hover around 7 lbs.

>>32552317
>>32546577

>>32551761
turns out military work is quickly becoming a short man's game

File: 20:16.png (834KB, 808x543px)

834KB, 808x543px

>>32552097
Yeah, it's less than what most folks think.

I still really dig my 20". But I completely understand why some prefer carbines.

By the same token, the folks making the "long and heavy" argument are overstating things a bit too.

>16"
>6.4 lbs as pictured

>20"
>7lbs as pictured
In my opinion the 20 really isnt that much longer either.

File: 2016-08-20 10.56.46.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

But I dooooooo

>>32551670
USMC rifle ranges are measured in yards, therefore our shooting distances are measured in yards as well

>>32552343
Find a 20 inch for sale under $1000 that weighs 7 lbs or under. Then realize you can get a 16 inch for $600 all day long.

>>32552053
>tfw the scope bites you

File: WP_20160525_004[1].jpg (3MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3072x1728px

>>32552317
>Vietnam style rifles
>he only manufacturer I can think of who makes a proper one is Fulton Armory
The FAR-15 Legacy is a fucking abortion that crams A2 components into an SP-1 clone. The glossy black finish and 1:8 twist rate barrel are just added insults to the people who actually dropped $1300 into those abominations.
>>32546695
You'd be amazed, trust me.

>>32552383
>build identical 16" and 20" AR
>only difference in cost is the barrels

Sounds like you don't know what you are doing.

File: AR15 A2 WASR 1063 Nagant 9130 Bayonets.png (765KB, 548x930px)

765KB, 548x930px

>>32551986
I like you

>>32552290
The wire makes that handguard look likea veiny penis

>>32545971
This is actually true. I'm surprised no one quoted you.

File: M16A2.jpg (132KB, 800x534px)

132KB, 800x534px

>any year
>hating the M16A2
>laughing_america.us

A E S T H E T I C

>>32551679
I think I can read aimpoint on it but what optic is that exactly?

>>32552816
>any year
>not hating the worst "upgrade" we ever made to the ar-15 pre-m4

File: IMG-1258348460.jpg (137KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 960x720px

>20"

>>32546633
>I know big guys who still don't like the full size stock when wearing armor.

This is my issue with it. I'm not a manlet but my high is all in my legs, so I guess I have manlet arms.

File: 1418517094892.jpg (941KB, 1800x1197px) Image search: [Google]

941KB, 1800x1197px

>>32546539

I'm 5'6 and I find the A2 stock comfortable as fuck.

M4fags are a bunch of wanna-be operadurs and are gay

File: IMG_20161128_220512157.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>32552856
It's an old Aimpoint G2

>>32553151
Neat. Where'd you get it and how do you like it?

>>32546505
Boots.....

>>32546417
What's wrong the A2 sights?

File: BN Shooting Team.jpg (388KB, 1439x712px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1439x712px

>>32553169
God damn it what didn't it post.....

>>32553174
Duty blows and I am tired....waiting on that Lcpl to get done with roving.

>>32553172
Oh my bad dude I got ahead of myself a bit to fast. Iron sights for the A2 are just fine. If you can hit a target at 500yards and repeat it successfully then you're good in my book. I tell all the boots under me when I did Edson/Wilcox "Yall mother fuckers don't know about Iron sights."

Because in almost every circumstance, having a compact rifle is more important than having a few hundred feet per second of velocity. Also, being hit in the balls by the barrel if you carry the gun while doing anything sucks. It's significantly easier to do anything with a SBR, or even a carbine, than a rifle.

In the military, rifles are even more pointless because beyond the effective range of a M4, they have mortars, machine guns, artillery, and air to support them, all of which are significantly more deadly in reality than rifles have ever been.

That being said, I've got an A4gery sitting next to me. I love mine, but that's because I carried one in Afghanistan and it gives me a gigantic nostalgia boner every time I pick it up. Of course, mine's got a significantly better barrel and a SSA in it, as opposed to the worn out shit and gritty burst trigger I had on my issued rifle. I also don't have to wear body armor to shoot, so the annoyingly long stock isn't as bothersome.

>people in thread go all MUH WEIGHT over 4" of barrel

>probably have 4lbs of m-lok/keymod bullshit and a heavy as fuck piston setup.

>>32553283
>mortars more effective than rifles

nigger this isnt static warfare, mortars blow now.

>>32553308
I see you have never been in combat.

>>32553295
Even better when they get an over-built receiver.

File: 1479684755784.jpg (94KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1024x768px

>>32545845

because I'm a manlet

>>32546565
I REALLY want to build a C7 clone but I'm not spending $2k on that fucking optic. If there was a passable copy in the $200-300 range I'd do it, but it's just not worth it to me.

Because it's not OP8R enough.

Short AR's are a tacticool meme.

>>32553426

WHAT A THRIIIIIIIILL......

>>32553283
>annoyingly long stock
What kind of manlet are you?

File: 04.png (360KB, 500x322px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 500x322px

>>32545845
I do i just never post because no one cares about my opinion.

>>32546267

You underestimate just how adjustable the stock would be. Imagine, if you will, a 20" rifle with a folding stock.

File: 1483425873655.jpg (38KB, 650x433px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 650x433px

>>32551819
>>32546972
>>32546199

>>32554050
I'm curious about that local maximum at 11 inches.

File: 22422.gif (2MB, 330x185px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 330x185px

>>32545898
The handguards and the stock are what make it weigh that extra pound and a half.

I liked A2's until I was issued one. I had an FN mfg one. It still had casting marks on the front of the mag well. The casting mark above the pistol grip would dig into the web of my thumb. The accuracy was trash (barrel was old though, can't blame that on the design), the handgaurds were obnoxious and loud, the carry handle just got in the way most of the time, and the finish on it was fucking trash. I wanted to get one until I actually got one.

>>32546138
I've noticed people are starting to use 16" barrels now for USPSA/ 3-gun
Mostly the ladies are using them but some guys are trying them out.

I'm partial to my 18" mid-length gas barrel.

>>32551679
> 18" in barrel with rifle length gas
> 12" in Larue Tactical Handguard
> Magpul PRS stock

I was going to go with a Midwest Industries Handguard for that slim profile bit I prefer a little bit of girth in my rifles.

>>32552879
Jesus christ, is that 20" with the barrel alone or are you counting that muzzle device as well?

That being said, nice rifle dude. It would be awesome in 3-gun

>>32552352
Well said brother, nice looking rifles btw.

>>32552816
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a168577.pdf
Admit it, the Marines should never be allowed to make weapon- or equipment-related decisions on their own.

>>32554448
Just the barrel, the middle device is ~4" long.

I got it for my 12.5 pistol, but because reasons I can't use it on it until the end of the month so I figured I'd make the 20" super long for fun

File: this matches stop looking.jpg (422KB, 3222x768px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 3222x768px

one day I'll get a nodak lower

one day

>>32552348
Hasn't it always been? Romans and Chinese were manlets that dominated their respective worlds against taller and stronger barbarians. Also Japs owned the much taller and stronger Koreans during the Imjin war. Manlets in modern warefare can fit in smaller spaces(mech infantry/tankers), are smaller targets, and require less material to supply and maintain. Stocky build also helps with rucking stupid amounts of weight.

I've used both and the m4 is better purely because it's more maneuverable and the slightly extra weight is nice.
At a range where there's a difference the m249/m240 in your team is there to pick up the slack.

>>32545845
cause carbines are sexy and operator as fuck

>>32554920
A1 module is sexy as fuck... God almighty my dick's harder than ever.

>>32545845
they're overkill for shooting paper plates at 15 yards like what all of /k/ does

File: old aimpoint.jpg (30KB, 349x126px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 349x126px

>>32553151
cool
do you have the magnifier?

File: muhfun.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

I have four other AR's with shorter barrels all the fancy bullshit on them from free float rails to PEQ's, but I always find myself reaching for my full length rifle. It's as basic as they come,and I love it because of that.

>I enjoy shooting it more
>I shoot it more accurately
>It shoots softer

It has somewhat of a cool factor to me because you don't see many other 20" AR's at the range these days either. The children will learn someday. Until then, let them enjoy their shorter barrel funs.

>>32545856
> there's no point in having a longer barrel and therefore greater muzzle velocity

man, it must suck being retarded

File: TCTU.gif (383KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

383KB, 1280x720px

>>32554454

>>32554050
>200 FPS +/-

Seems pretty worth it considering .223 is so Anemic with any weight and powder combo.

It's not even a 'tism. 20" barrels are worth it for everything

File: Colt-Canada-MRR-11.jpg (511KB, 1000x600px) Image search: [Google]

511KB, 1000x600px

>>32546417

The leafs got it right with the MRR. Keymod BTFO

File: unnamed (1).jpg (214KB, 1412x1059px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1412x1059px

>>32545845
But people do bruh.

>>32552614
why yes it does

File: maxresdefault.jpg (237KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1280x720px

>>32545845

Because fixed stocks greatly limit the number of buttstock options I can have for my rifle, and having a carbine-length buffer tube with a 20 inch barrel would look goofy as fuck.

File: 2342342342341.jpg (89KB, 1410x549px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1410x549px

>>32556465
Function over form homie. In the course of slapping together a rough A4gery I ended up opting for a collapsible stock option because fuck using an A4/A2 fixed with a 4x ACOG.

>>32556199
We are achieving fudd levels in this thread that shouldn't even be possible.

>>32556465
that's why you slap a vltor A5 buffer system on there, homie.

I thought it was a meme, until a buddy of mine got one. It is the smoothest shooting AR I have felt.

So is this the current /arg/ or what?

>>32556539
No, stop being lazy and make a new /arg/.

>>32556544
Fine. I will.

>>32553539
>le manlet maymay, ebin!

>>32555357
Excuse me, I shoot steal plates at 15 yards, thank you.
>I like the ping noise

>>32545845
Because I'm not fighting wars with my AR.
MAYBE i MIGHT need to use it for HD, where the carbine length would be better inside my house.

>>32545965
>more than one type of SFU
The average Delta operator or SEAL isn't going to be sniping people w/o a specialized rifle.

>>32552102
No one mentions the recoil reduction. 20" ARs barely move when firing.

>>32552879
>that spaghetti barrel
does your gun even lift

>>32556531
>vltor A5 buffer system
What does it do thats different from any other carbine length buffer?

File: IMG_0653.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>32545845
My first AR is a Del ton 20 inch rifle kit. It is a great rifle so far and I have not had any issues. Compared to a 16 inch rifle there is noticeably less recoil on my 20 inch rifle I think. I got the 20inch because I find the M16A4 the best looking AR rifle.

>>32557058
It's funny because you know they've never tried to deal with an A2 stock's LOP coupled with a plate carrier.

File: buttplugs.jpg (118KB, 647x894px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 647x894px

>>32558154
A5 uses an extended buffer and receiver extension and a rifle-length buffer spring to duplicate the operation of the rifle buffer system in a compact, telestock-friendly package.
It's smoother and more reliable than any carbine RE setup and is objectively the best choice for nearly every application, from 20" rifles to suppressed piston SBRs.

>>32556215
Those are pure sex.

Got my caliber magazine and instantly fell in love.

>>32558230
yeah because back in my day we used our iron sights and didn't have body armor kiddo

File: f2de1e80baf0e0b75a4241f4220b8fa0.jpg (243KB, 640x465px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 640x465px

>>32556215
>tfw American and can't get special snowflake leafguns

>>32556501

I NEED THIS IN MY LIFE!!!!

WHAT DO YOU HAVE ON IT!?

>>32559746
It's just a basic bitch A4 clone with an Emod and a BCM Gunfighter grip, relax.

speaking of full size AR's
>Bushy XM15-E2S 20 inch (carry handle upper)
>$675
>pre freedom group
>collapsible stock
Should I buy it?

>>32560045
>20 inch HBAR, 1/9 twist, carry handle upper
pass

>>32560072
What's wrong with 1/9 twist?

>>32559999
Can't relax with those quads.

>>32561307
It's slow enough that it can have difficulty stabilizing the heavy bullets that are popular these days.
It's not necessarily a problem, but it's an undesirable remnant of a time when AR-15 manufacturers were really dumb and couldn't grasp basic concepts like "people want the same twist rate the military uses" and "16 inch carbines should have a smaller gas port than 14.5 inch carbines".

>>32552352
>In my opinion the 20 really isnt that much longer either.
I mean, to be fair, you can't really have an opinion about how much longer it is. It's a measurable fact.

>>32561455
Your reading comprehension is questionable, anon didn't say it was not longer.

>>32556215
That plastic looking finish.

>>32545845
But I have a 20" AR anon

File: Snakehound Machine Loudener.jpg (1MB, 1000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1000x1500px

>>32553532
WITH DARKNESS AND SILENCE THROUGH THE NIGHT...

>>32545845
Cant pertend to be a high speed low drag door kicker with a full size rifle.

>>32562445
>oakley gloves
>velco
>railed gas block

6/10 needs work

File: 1472782119980.jpg (250KB, 990x656px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 990x656px

>>32562509
false

>>32562401
Cerakote, son.

>>32562530
Uh, I was thinkin of all the cop wannabes on arfcom who hang all kinds of unnecessary cancer on their carbines.

That pic is as old as white dogshit, too.

File: IMG_1424.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

>>32545906
>>32552044
In

>>32562530
>no body armor
>OD web gear
>black boots
>aviators
>full size 16s with nothing but irons
>bayonets

I am loving this image.

>>32562628

>No body armor.

They're clearly wearing PASGT vests.

>>32562645
You're right, my bad.

>>32562628
reserve unit lol

File: FDE M16A4 clone.jpg (1MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1333px

>>32545845
>>32546781
>>32556501
Why is the M5 RAS so sexy

>>32562841
Probably the M203 cutouts.

File: 20161109_021909-1-1 (1).jpg (2MB, 3211x1339px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3211x1339px

>>32545845
I love 20in ARs
Pic is mine.

>>32545955
>>32546864
>>32551968
>>32552355
>>32552816
>>32562589
My niggas

>>32562876
Yes.

>>32545845
>Why does nobody seem to like full sized ARs anymore?

I appreciate the lighter weight and better maneuverability
I don't ever plan on shooting 223 beyond 400 or so yards, so a standard 55 grain will fragment just fine out of a 16 inch barrel and if I feel like being fancy, get hollow points

Long range shooting will be with 308

>>32545845
I'm working on affording one at the moment.

>>32564948
>the lighter weight
It's not the 20" barrel's fault that nobody makes a 1/7 twist A1 barrel.

File: Snapchat-6378235536016435189.jpg (663KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

663KB, 1440x2560px

Ey I have a gun that looks long.

>>32545856
You are retarded.

>>32554920
Got mine yesterday. Building lower today and no more mismatch. Waited 7 months

File: mk12.jpg (67KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 800x533px

bumping

>>32564948
This is the classic inability to think of variables outside of range.

>>32546403
This makes no sense.

File: 1420678574305.png (24KB, 128x128px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 128x128px

>>32545856

>There's no point in having energy and velocity imparted on your projectile!

Why doesn't everyone just use full automatic pistols, retard?

>>32552066
This chart seems to be getting conveniently ignored by people who think there's any real ballistic difference from a round shot out of a 16" and a 20" barrel...

File: 20160121_233707.jpg (1MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x1836px

>>32553426

>>32561307
Won't stabilize M856 tracer at fuckoff-cold temps.

File: IMG_2612.jpg (992KB, 1626x2526px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 1626x2526px

>>32556382
Please do tell me your optic and mount

>>32571345
Aimpoint 3000, Vortex low rings, unknown carry handle rail.

I honestly don't keep it on there but it's cool to have an old optic like that.

>>32559746
Don't have that rifle anymore but just a complete 20" gov't profile upper from BCM with a KAC rail, some no-name stubby grip, VLTOR stock and BCM pistol grip.

>>32562841
It just is. KAC makes the best drop-in rails on the planet.

File: 1375105966762.jpg (61KB, 509x509px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 509x509px

>>32545906
>M27
>midlength gas system
>M27
>gas system

>>32556215
>magpul

>>32571504
>it's popular so it's not cool now guys
Magpul mags are some of the most reliable you can use numbnuts.

File: 20160917_181831.jpg (2MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4032x3024px

Because I wanted the closest thing to a trunk gun I could find in an AR pattern gun, chambered in a common rifle cartridge, not being in a state that allows SBR's, and not wanting to fuck around with stupid pistol setups (because CA is gay, and I don't want to have to bend over backwards).

Also, this is my baby.

>>32571552
A 20" gun with a Law folding stock adapter would be the same size for storage but dramatically more pleasant to shoot.

>>32545845
Marines still use the full length M16.

Army prefers the M4 because it doesn't fucking matter and infantry have a DMR anyways.

For civilians I have no idea, but there is the 16 inch SBR limit because ATF ruins everything.

>>32571609
>Marines still use the full length M16.
Not anymore.

>>32571617
we still use the M16

any phase plan to do a complete replace with the M4 will take the next 2-4 years

>>32571617
>let women in
>switch to M4
Every Marine A Carbineperson

>>32571648
Slow clap. Carbineperson, holy shit my sides

>>32569780
You mean how the chart shows as bullet weight goes up the velocity gain from barrel length increases?

>>32571504

Colt Canada knows what they are doing

>>32571699
>as bullet weight goes up
Both rounds are 55gr., my dear 20"tard.

File: BallisticsB (1).gif (21KB, 630x740px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 630x740px

>>32571699
>as bullet weight goes up the velocity gain from barrel length increases
This is objectively false though, if not directly opposite of the actual case...

File: Ballistics_MK262.gif (66KB, 440x640px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 440x640px

>>32571827

>>32571827
You just posted a graph showing after 100 yards the 77 grain bullets have a larger velocity gain.

>>32572227
At 150 the 77gr. has a 104fps difference between 16" and 20". This is, at best, negligible. Meanwhile, the 75gr. has 96fps differentiation at that same range, 68gr. has 86fps, 62gr. has 69fps, and 55gr. has a whopping 115fps. The velocity increase is inconsistent and, as has been mentioned, completely and totally meaningless when it hardly ever even begins to enter the three-digit range. The velocity difference between a 20" barrel and a 16" barrel is hilariously overstated in this thread.

File: IMG_2672_zps605e0931.jpg (75KB, 1024x312px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 1024x312px

The real benefit of 18-20" barrels is the almost unbearable smoothness of the rifle-length gas system, really.

>>32545845
There is no reason for big Assault™ rifle

>>32546327
Niqqa aven 14.5" is too long for a house, especially if you have a can.

File: 447837Slide16.jpg (138KB, 562x800px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 562x800px

>>32573954
The Son Tay raiders had 11.5" guns with 3.5" moderators, and they did OK.

manlets.

when you're a tall guy, a full-length rifle doesn't feel clunky at all

when you're a fucking Dwarf, it's like wearing shoes that are too big.

>>32571648
>Every Marine A Carbineperson
my sides

>>32573504
A mid length gas system on a 16 inch does the same thing.

>>32574969
false

>>32552948
what stock is that nigga

>>32575046
mine feels like a 22lr when you shoot it
it had less rise than my a4 clone

>a2 stock lbv
Fine
>a2 stock pasgt vest
fine
>a2 stock interceptor vest
fine
>a2 stupid MTV/OTV

FUCK YOUUUUUUUUUUUU

>>32576300
If your 16" gun doesn't have an A2 stock and an A2 fh like your a4gery does then it's not a fair comparison.

im almost-guns currently waiting for my furniture and backordered 95% rifle to come in to my LGS and Tbh i got a 16" barrel because it's cuter

File: 23840743479_c80f6b0271_o.jpg (1014KB, 1580x988px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 1580x988px

>>32577044
The additional cuteness of a 10.3" is worth the tax stamp.

File: gassystemlength.jpg (24KB, 519x396px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 519x396px

>>32552066
Seconded. Rifle length gas system is the biggest advantage (which can be had in an 18" barrel).

>>32577855
It can be had with a 16" barrel if you're willing to run a .110" gas port and don't plan on shooting in below-zero temps and typically shoot brass-cased ammo

>>32577855
brb time for a 14.5" rifle for suppressed-only use

File: 20161012_075009 small.jpg (2MB, 2448x1377px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2448x1377px

As you can see I am still a fan

>>32577215
>paying for cuckstamps

I'm not a soldier, or an analyst but I'm curious. Why the need for 14" and under carbines? Is an extra 4" really going to make handling it in a vehicle that much harder?

File: dsc03333.jpg_thumbnail1.jpg (30KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 640x480px

>>32578218
>14" and under carbines?
> Is an extra 4"
You're looking, by your criteria, at a bare minimum of 6" of difference
> Is an extra 4" really going to make handling it in a vehicle that much harder?
Yes, 6" or 6"+ is going to have a noticeable impact on handling and storage, why do you think fucking carbines were even made to begin with?

File: 20161027_144949 small.jpg (1MB, 2448x1377px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2448x1377px

>>32577215
I am doing 2 SBR's right now. This and an MPX. waiting for them to come back. SBRs are fun and worth the money to me.

>>32578265
Why though, why do they need to be so compact?

>>32578400
Have you been inside a car recently?

>>32578400
To save space dum dum

>>32577215
Rear sling plate and CH are wrong.

>they are fun
>raifu gas
>obeying gene stoners commandment
>i used them in iraq
>none of us fucking clear houses
>because if we did, they do the job just fine albeit maybe not optimally according to /k/ommandos, even saint larry vickers says do

jesus christ how did i survive iraq as a 5'5 infantryman with fixed sights, fixed stock and a long barrel?

i came to ctrl+f "virginia" for a meetup and maybe someone shooting private land and stumble on this, dammit

>>32578533
>go on /k/
>get exposed to autism
Many such cases; SAD!!

>>32545948
>There are alot of non-combat arms units that still have them.

this seems ironic considering the traditional role of a carbine.

>>32578614
Sort of like how SBRs are part of the NFA because pistols were originally NFA items and they didn't want people putting a """stock""" on handguns and calling them rifles, but now we have people putting """arm braces""" on rifles and calling them pistols.

File: dpms_rfa3-204-b.jpg (9KB, 535x153px)

9KB, 535x153px

>>32578400
Well shit anon, why not just get a 24" build while we're at it, Jesus.

File: m4-carbine-002-ts600.jpg (25KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 600x400px

>>32578533
Excuse the everloving fuck out of me if I'd like my rifle to be a bit more compact without really sacrificing performance, have an optic, and a collapsible stock to suit my preferred LOP to make my shooting as comfortable as possible. I guess anyone who doesn't run a bone stock A2 w/ irons is a "mallninja", right? Fucking drama queen.

File: 20170104_203830.jpg (384KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 1920x1080px

>not having a cute 5.5 incher

File: 20170108_125915.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

Does mine fit in?

>>32581082
>SD3G FCG
That's, like, so 2014 anon.

>>32551623
Not necessarily, it's simp,a statement which gievs some weight to a shorter barrel. Yes he disagrees what the optimum is, but don't make your disagreement larger than it needs to be.

Hell, some anons around here probably do have super short barrels and think it would get them through everything they need to worry about- I just hope they have another rifle as well.

>1" barrel masterrace

>>32571648
My preferred pronoun is marine

File: 20161203_203903.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

18 inch here. One of my faves.

>>32581082
That's fucking sexy.

I really want a M16A4 clone and I'm not playing fucking ebay/gunsamerica/gunbroker hunt and peck games any fucking more I'm sick and fucking tired of it.

I don't want junky ass parts either even if they fit the USGI profile.

I'm going to spend my hard earned money like the retard I am and buy the FN Military Collector's edition next paycheck.

Suck my ass.

Congrats to all the people with cool M16A4geries though.

>>32545845
>special forces uses carbines and SBRs
>carbines and SBRs are now officially cool
>everyone wants carbines and SBRs
But in reality, a 20 inch barrel doesn't give you too much advantage over a 14.5/16 inch. More weight and more difficulty opahratin in cQB environments. 18inch barrels seem to have the best balance between the two.

>>32583148
https://www.stagarms.com/a2-lower-half/
http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/BCM-M16-Government-20-Upper-Receiver-Group-p/bcm-urg-gov-20.htm
https://www.amazon.com/MaTech-Mil-Spec-Back-up-Iron-Sight/dp/B002E6SXN4
http://shop.knightarmco.com/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=KM98065-S (out of stock)
https://swfa.com/trijicon-4x32-acog-rifle-scope-8.html

so hard

>>32583264
be sure to get the factory second on that M5

>>32583448
that's what the link is for, yeah

>>32546354
>The biggest advantage of 18" and 20" barrels is rifle length gas.

This, I have an 18" rifle length gas upper that I use for 3-gun, with the muzzle brake and A5 buffer/ Tubb flat wire spring, it is a seriously soft shooting setup, it has zero muzzle rise.

>>32546453
>There's nothing wrong with the A2 stock

Try getting proper eye relief on a 4x ACOG while wearing body armor with an A2 stock. It sucks for almost everyone except tall lanky guys that have long necks. Have you seen the pics of Marines holding their M-16A4s on top of their shoulders? Tell me again that there is nothing wrong with the A2 stock.

>>32545955
How did you get an AR15 in Australia?

I don't like carrying the weight, and my pelican case is too small for one.

>>32545845
Because long barrels are for .308
Carbines are much better

Because the performance of 5.56 out of a 20" barrel compared to a 16" or 14.5" barrel is generally pretty similar. There's, what, an average of 95fps differentiation? So why the fuck not have a smaller, lighter rifle?

>>32585489
5.56 starts dropping off quickly below 16", its more like 200 fps comparing a 20" to a 14.5"

File: 1475313250325.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>32545961