>First AR15 >M16a4 clone Mistake or not?

>>33175815
Do it faggot. The second most aesthetically pleasing m16 variant if you can't make an A1 clone.

>>33175815
No mistake.

>practical with the rails and shit
>best barrel length
>best stock

a1 is most aesthetic, a4 is the least. But it is the most practical, so as a first you did it right.

>>33175822
I have heard a lot of complaints about the length of the A2 stock and 20" barrel. The velocity is nice, but it seems like everything a 20" can do, the 16" can do just as well.

An A4 is always a mistake, but it's better than an A2.

>>33175934
We dont disagree often.

>>33175815
No mistake dude. A4s are bad to the bone.

>>33175934
I agree with that for it being a military rifle, but a first time AR owner is going to want to slap a bunch of crap to it.

>best of both(and what is really the only option) get a C-7 style gasblock rail thing and use that for the crap, but keep it as the most aesthetic rifle

File: id=101842.png (39KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x500px

>>33175987
What a fuck-up.

Here we go again

16" M193
>3150 FPS

20" M193
>3300 FPS

16" M855
>2990 FPS

20" M855
>3100 FPS

Protip, both are well above the fragmentation velocities of ~2600+ FPS

Protip 2 not applicable to casuals
OTM ammunition with weights of 68gr+ (these being the most common, there are certain lower weight bullets out there) does not expand, or fragment. Fragile OTM nose cone lends to a heavier bullet tail stable at longer ranges, and that fragile OTM cone will snap off upon impact at minimal velocities, leading to very unstable projectile shape to travel through tissue, yawing as it does so

whether it is a 10.5" barrel or 20+" barrel modern loads like Mk262 will perform equally well from a terminal ballistics standpoint

M193 and M855 will perform equally well from a terminal ballistics standpoint under 200m, and especially at home defense or theoretical defensive usage ranges under 100m for a civilian in the US

Collapsible stocks provide more utility, shorter barrels provide more maneuverability, and if you want to get into the autistic debate of gas system robustness and perceived reliability, Vltor A5 solves it for both and is equally effective on 10" barrels as it is 20". by the same token ,all things being equal a shorter barrel is mechanically more accurate than a longer barrel, and lighter


TLDR;

There is literally no reason for a barrel longer than 16" with regards to the 5.56x45mm cartridge in the current year

File: 1024px-M16A2_-_AM.016070.jpg (82KB, 1024x599px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 1024x599px

>>33176043
>>33176043
>There is literally no reason for a barrel longer than 16" with regards to the 5.56x45mm cartridge in the current year

what are A E S T H E T I C S for 500?

File: 1462901869905.jpg (41KB, 525x349px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 525x349px

>>33176043
Hold up there, Mr. Operator.

There is one, irrefutable thing about the 20" barrels.

A E T H E T I C S

File: 1455590557565.jpg (81KB, 900x805px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 900x805px

>>33176095
>>33176132
Hivemind

>>33176043
>There is literally no reason for a barrel longer than 16" with regards to the 5.56x45mm cartridge in the current year
Farther effective range.

>>33176043
[shrieking velocityfags in the distance]
>>33176095
>>33176132
Only if they're pencil profile.

>>33176311
because fuck knows that extra 90fps is going to noticeably lengthen your range envelope

I want an A4 clone but I don't want a government profile barrel. What do /k/?

>>33176365
use a different barrel ???

File: 1481819772432.jpg (213KB, 599x797px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 599x797px

>>33176043
Good to know that we, as civilians, exclusively use the demonstrably icepicking garbage military ammo.

>>33175815
Best decision you've ever made.

Don't fuck with it.

>>33176311
>>33176336
XM193 penetrating level 3 shit steel armor for one reason

better penetration of level 4 ceramics for another.

>>33176464
at close range perhaps but further out the drop off in velocity will bite either way.

File: 1475073058670.jpg (202KB, 1000x532px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1000x532px

>>33175815

I personally prefer the A1 and pre-A1 Vietnam style.

But that doesn't mean the A4 is a mistake. It's aesthetic as fuck. Get on that shit.

File: C7_Diemaco_Build.jpg (1MB, 3863x2575px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3863x2575px

>not going with the objectively best M16 variant
The barrel profile was literally the only flaw.

>>33176365
HBAR

>>33175815
I was k9 and deployed with army/marines/air force security forces guys. I always felt bad for the marines carrying that giant thing around, especially for clearing huts/buildings. They truly are the bastard children of the navy. Even their kevlars are a shit. Don't give me your bs 20 inch barrel nonsense either. Nobody is shooting anything accurately past 400m anyway, especially in the chaos of a firefight.

>tfw almost done with my A2 clone
..what's wrong with it, guys?

>>33178071
"The M16A2 was a mistake." -Eugene Stoner

>3 round burst
>Worst barrel profile
>1:7" twist
>M855
>Longer stock
>Uncomfy grip
>Round forward assist
>Fatter front sight post
>Complicated and worse rear sight
>Added weight for no benefit

The only things it got right were the reinforced receivers, the stronger handguards, the shell deflector, and the muzzle device. In all other aspects its inferior. Leave it to the Marines to fuck up a great combat rifle and turn it into a shitty target rifle.

>>33178228
Well I like the stock and the grip. My barrel is 1:9'' so it's not a perfect clone (also has a heavy barrel, which should be fun). I don't really mind the round FA, it's a little harder to hit I guess, but not really significantly. The rear sight is more advanced which is generally considered a positive thing to most people.

>>33176043

>aesthetic
>more reliable
>smoother recoil impulse
>less wear on parts
>runs cleaner
>velocity

nobody uses 16" barrels, and those velocity are no where close to accurate for a 16", 16" only exists for civilians due to shitty laws.

M4's are shit with their 14.5inch barrels.

>>33178311
The military should have gone 1:9" or 1:8" and stuck with XM193. The teardrop is in every way easier to hit, either with the palm or thumb. The rear sight is not "more advanced," its overly complicated.

You went from a soldier being able to sight in his rifle once and being able to hit anything from his nose to 375 without holdovers to an extremely complex, overly fragile, easily accidentally engaged target sight which gives a target shooter opportunity to precisely sight in and compensate for their engagement of black silhouettes with variable windspeed and distances with a more blocked sight picture than the A1, and everyone knows in combat you'll have the time to dial your target sights up to the correct pitch and yaw, right?

>>33176365
HBAR. Free float A2 handguards. National match rear sight. Lead weight in buttstock

Now youve got a tack driver

File: faqchart_zpskbwdcbcu (1).gif (11KB, 600x482px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 600x482px

>>33178363
>and those velocity are no where close to accurate for a 16"

>>33178492

look up chrono's of ammo, 16" is 2800-2900 max

>>33178432
You don't have to adjust for windage on the rear sight, and you don't have to adjust for elevation, but being able to is most certainly a plus.

>>33178599
>sight in rifle
>awesome
>oh no bad guys
>pick up rifle to shoot at them
>miss horribly because i accidentally touched the drums and they spun every which way ten times over
>get shot
Yeah, exposed drums seems entirely reasonable for things beyond target shooting

>>33178432

It's M193, the X designates faulty and rejected ammo for training use only.

>>33175815
Full stocks and carry handles have always had a certain aestheticism. Go for it.

File: ar15barrelvelocitychart.jpg (33KB, 640x369px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 640x369px

>>33178571
but you're wrong?

>>33178710
You're a fucking idiot

File: 223Velocitiesanddropchart.gif (22KB, 630x790px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 630x790px

>>33178363
>>33178571
You're a fucking idiot.

>>33176737
I really like the look of those older handguards. Why did those triangular ones fall out of favor for the round halfs?

>>33175995
leaf get out

>>33175815
Think about it this way.

The m16a4 is a lot of people's first "AR-15". It was mine. And it was great for learning the fundamentals of stationary shooting out to 500 meters.

But when given the choice, I built an m4gery instead. The m16 can start to feel like a damn musket in anything but stationary shooting.

File: Man16.jpg (10KB, 500x133px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 500x133px

ITT: M16s for babies

>>33181268
You can use a round half on either side.

Triangular were matched sets left/right.

File: 83lPZUd.jpg (4MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4320x2432px

>>33181268
Clamshell easily replaced because both are identical. Triangles, I think the left(?) side broke more often, and so you had to get another left handguard, not just any random handguard like with clamshell.

I really fucking want a mock A1 though, and I really want the shorter A1 stocks with the same anti-rotation lug as the A2 stocks, even for my regular rifle because I'm a manlet.

File: rFZ6ZwU.png (419KB, 300x900px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 300x900px

>>33181883
Disregard the "rotating stock" portion, I looked up pictures and A1 stocks seem to have also included the bottom lugs.

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_barrel6.jpg (31KB, 650x433px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 650x433px

>>33176043
It's important that we don't forget just how much of a weak fucking sister 5.56 out of a short barrel is. 5.56mm M855 ammunition is optimized for a 20" barrel with a 1:7 twist. It is not surprising that its greatest velocity of 2979 ft/sec is obtained in a 20" barrel. After all, Stoner designed the cartridge for the 20" barrel.

Decreased velocity with barrels much shorter than 14.5" (the M4 carbine barrel) have a number of unwanted effects. Lowered linear velocity produces lower rotational velocity, which will result in diminished gyroscopic stability of the bullet. It will also result in significantly decreased projectile kinetic energy, decreased ability to generate a significant would channel, and will reach a point of diminishing returns where lethality of the round definitely comes into question. Once you go below 11", muzzle velocity nose dives. M855 bullets traveling below 2500 fps when impacting a target will not produce a lethal wound channel. On the graph, anything below the red line is shit).

Secondly, with shorter barrels, tuning of the gas port for weapon cycling becomes more critical. Adding a suppressor, which does slightly increase bore pressure, will result in more erratic and forceful cycling of the weapon leading to earlier weapon failure. It is also apparent that the pressure near the barrel rises exponentially with less barrel length, which necessitates that suppressors on shorter barrel weapons be designed to handle much higher pressures.

In short, there has been a cultural shift from the 20" barrel length in AR-15/M16 weapon systems chambered for 5.56 to progressively shorter barrels for the purpose of producing an increasingly more compact assault weapon without resorting to a bullpup design. This causes problems with sound, and lethality. If you don't want those problems, use a bullpup.

>>33182252
Literally this entire post could be solved by just not using M855 lmao.

>>33182273
That's why .300blk is becoming popular in short barrel ARs. They solve the problem by making the round a behemoth and accepting that long range is not something to bother with when your barrel is shorter than 11".

>>33175815
It is NOT a mistake
>GOAT iron sights
>take off handle, rails for optics
>barrel length is perfect
>rails for everything

My only objection: the forward assist. Even Stoner said it was a bad idea. But then again, he said this during Vietnam.

>>33175815
Mistake. Quad-picatinny is an awful meme, imitating military issue is another bad meme.

20" barrels are another mistake, they add velocity, but close to zero extension in effective range. Only reason to get one is varmint hunting.

>>33177692
>Nobody is shooting anything accurately past 400m anyway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ukciUja7dw

Note the barrel length.

>>33175815
My first AR was an M16A2 clone.

>Is it a mistake?
Hell no it isnt. It gets the most use out of any rifle I own, probably the most accurate too.

>>33182503
A4*

File: 1465341808469-k.jpg (28KB, 500x555px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x555px

>tfw my A1 clone will finally be done early next week
>mfw all Colt parts except lower and barrel