mid length gas system vs carbine length

[cacop]

All this talk of different systems reminds me of my Colt factory armorer instructor when he discussed mods to rifles.

He basically said if you change one thing about a rifle that affects the operation of the weapon you have to make other changes in the system.

A perfect example is our PD cutting the barrels of 6920s down to the FSB. The guy doing the work also nade other changes and they work.

My Colt armorer pointed out other departments that had not changed the weapon other than taking a saw to the barrel and threading for the flash hider. They had all kinds of problems and then call Colt to complain. Colt of course takes a look at the S/N and realizes it didn't leave the factory that way.

You could probably make just about any configuration workable, even some goofy ones, with the right changes elsewhere.

[fireblast713]

Good read on those threads, I had already went with a middy just because I heard it was a little more gentle on the rifle action and thus potentially a little more reliable, I didn't realize there was so much information regarding the debate

[ra2bach]

Not sure where you are with this, or what you already have, but if this is your first or only AR I would stick with the 16" mid-length.

The 14.5" CAN be finicky, MAY have issues with some ammo types, COULD present problems if you start monkeying with buffers and springs, and WILL present a greater challenge to changing out parts later on WHEN you decide to do so.

perfect answer...

[G22inSC]

My patrol rifles were always 14.5" barrels that were either department owned with A2 birdcages or mine with permanent phantoms. I finally decided that I wanted to see what all the "fuss" was about so I am currently building a 14.5" middy with the Bravo extended birdcage. Can't wait to see how it turns out and runs on the range.

[Herknav90]

I am an engineer, and I follow everything said about a Middy being better than a Carbine for the reasons presented. However, I built one just to have a subjective standpoint, and I bought parts particularly to make it a smooth shooter. Honestly, I had a back ordered Middy barrel due to supply and demand - I bought a Carbine barrel since they are readily available. However, I shot 200 rounds through a recent Middy and the Carbine each. The Carbine was SLIGHTLY less jumpy than the Middy, and I had a 26 yr Army Ranger shoot them too. He agreed that the Carbine was a bit smoother.

Now, if the Carbine was slightly less jumpy, then where is the destructive nature that breaks BCGs and the like that is posted on forums everywhere. There are premature failures with anything manufactured. Is it premature or the Cabine being nasty damaging? If it's smoother...It's better as far as parts being damaged. So, I don't totally agree with the statements on this forum and others. Sorry, don't buy it totally.

Just the very nature of trying to obtain a Middy barrel...It's frustrating with the Sold Out, Out of Stock, and Backordered. I like the Middys for the length too being a taller person, but I built the Carbine below (SPECTER) and the hand hold is fantastic. Now, I also like the FSB, but I do intend to leave a scope on this rifle, so the flip down is actually NICE to avoid the co-witness issues...It's distracting.

Now, the military does Rifles and Carbines. If there was a HUGE difference between the Middy and the Carbine...the Middy would be the current method of purchase. Will we see this in the future? Maybe, but there are a LOT of carbines in the Military. Can't be too wrong or too ruff on equipment. I think the real answer is DEPENDS on what you want!

[mike boufford]

What about something like this?
http://www.weaponevolution.com/forum...4A1-RIS-II-FSP
Dustin

Thanks for the idea. Now all I have to do is squirrel some money away for the part.

[mike boufford]

What about something like this?
http://www.weaponevolution.com/forum...4A1-RIS-II-FSP
Dustin

Thanks for the idea. I looked that one up and found the DD M4 9.5 FSP. Now all I have to do is squirrel some money away for the part.