I have not. I just know my 10.3" is horrible. I will re-evaluate the 12.5 and my options, given this. I thought that the 12.5" would be closer to the 10.3" than to the 14.5", honestly.
After looking at rail-space, etc. I don’t know if the 9" rail is going to give me the room I want with the K16i, to run the SR switch how I want, etc.
Here is a 10.5" barrel and a 14.5" gun with a Z6i mounted on it for reference (the K16i’s Swarovski twin)
The bottom gun is setup almost identical to what I have in mind, actually.
I’d go with the Middy.
My BCM 14.5 mid with H buffer and standard carbine spring has been 100%, even with Tula (however this was after several thousand of M193 and that old Hornady 55gr “training” ammo). Start changing with the recipe in terms of buffer and spring weights, and you’ll get problems.
If you’re not going to run the FSP, and you’re going to attach a lot of stuff, might as well just go with a 13" rail.
As far as velocity:
That’s with M855.
Since you already have a 10.5 I’d just get the 14.5. Better tools for the job. Remember, there is no “one to do it all”. Everything has advantages and limitations.
Kindof where I am headed with the thing.
BCM…those barrels don’t come from Daniel Defense, do they? Also, from what I understand, BCM’s gas-ports are more tuned for 5.56 while Daniel Defense’s are a bit more open, yes? I wonder if this carries over to their 14.5’s.
I heard/read that BCMs are hammer forged by FN. i cannot confirm this.
I dont know what port size they run on their 14.5 middy but I remember asking Joe Marler what port size theirs had and IIRC, he said “.078 for better reliability”, i assume across a wider range of ammunition. This was some years ago when 14.5 middy’s were all the rage and I dont know if they still run the same size or how big or little a diff that is/was to BCM’s at the time.
That chart just verifies what I’ve been saying - you only gain 100fps between a 12.5" and 14.5". You’ve already got an NFA lower. Why not pin a muzzle device on a 14.5" and throw it on a Title I lower and put the 12.5" on the SBR?
Again, no dog in this fight. Just trying to save you tons of money, money that I wish I had saved.
Part of the difference for configurations I run is that the 1.93-2.01" height scope mounts frees up room under the optic for a DBAL, which makes the shorter setups more attractive. Since you’ve mentioned length and wanting to find the goldilocks setup, to be completely honest I’ve even been messing with the idea of running a 13.7" barrel as an SBR setup (with URX3 10.75"), but the honest answer is that it doesn’t make a ton of sense.
The 14.5" is fairly easily justified for a TitleII lower owner wanting a do-all recce, but the 12.5" can still do a lot in that regard too, it’s more of a case where the difference between a shorter than 3’ long gun and longer than 3’ long gun is unusually huge, especially when some of the densest handling part is dangling off the muzzle (in an inch and a half wide cylinder), so tucking that even even am measly 2" can really do a lot.
As far as handguard, if you’re already happy running the Troy’s, the KMR will fill that role just as well, being extremely light, with the BCM mini-VFG and some key-mod panels, you’ll be more than adequately isolated thermally if you have a bunch of plastic around there - iirc the KAC cover is probably the best candidate for that. I’ve always felt that lighter longer guns handle like shorter ones, so little stuff like running a 3V Scout and KMR rail can make it an easier rifle to run - same idea with the offset KAC sights - that means you can run a much lighter (if you like that height over bore, the API super-light might be the best option) fixed scope mount without losing and effectiveness.
Don’t get Gunz started on the source of the BCM barrels, but right now you can source really high quality barrels from plenty of sources, including BCM/DD/Centurion/Noveske, in both 12.5" and 14.5" flavors, so if the 14.5" covers that area you want for compromise performance, go with that and drive on.
The only reason we’re looking at you a bit funny on wanting a Recce type SBR upper is that you’ve already got a 14.5" unit (I’m assuming a lighter barrel), so how different do you want the recce one to be (or rather, how similar do you want this one to be). The same argument, if your existing 14.5" is a lighter rifle, why not set this one up to run exclusively as a high performance suppressed only setup (and run a brake on it) then set up your other 14.5" as the training/practice/unsupressed focused rifle, configure them identically, and take advantage of the fact that you have two very similar awesome optics. I’ve got the ghetto version of this for my go-to rifle pair (a 16" Recce with heavy barrel and 1-6x optic, then a 16" Lightweight with TR24RT or AP T-1 that is the training analog for both the recce and my dual stamp SBR in those two configurations).
I used to own a 14.5" but sold it. I really liked it. I have a 10.3" 5.56 and 300BLK and 16.1" 5.56. Picture was my friend at Unity Tactical’s stuff, not mine. I just posted it for reference.
And you only gain ~180 fps from a 10.5 to 12.5. Only 75 fps from a 11.5 to 12.5.
If he has his 10.5 for close in stuff, and a 14.5 as a “recce”, he has more options than just a 12.5 that does neither mission as well.
Browntip is stunningly effective from a 10.3 out to 300m. My reason is mainly blast and rail space. At this point predominantly railspace.
I know, but most people aren’t using the 70gr TSX’s though.
I understand. That is my go to load when not plinking or running drills though. 2800fps from a 14.5" barrel.
From everything I am seeing, the 14.5" with carbine system is the way I should go. The port size spec’ed by DD is 0.067". Slightly larger than mil-spec. Should barely shuffle along with an H2 buffer and new spring using Wolf and other junk for high-volume without being too overgassed at all with the M855 and Browntip.
Their midlength 14.5" has a 0.076" gas-port, which would likely require a carbine buffer.
More mass/More gas should = more reliable, to a point, and I think the 14.5" with 0.067" gas port and carbine system is best, based on the reliability tests Mike Pannone has conducted, etc. Speaking with someone from Daniel Defense who has shot their M4A1, and their 14.5" middy system, he says the difference is very minor, and with an H2 the M4A1 suppressed is similar to their suppressed middy with an H buffer. Both run fine with an H, though, he says.
I tend to agree with Mike Pannone. I had a Noveske 10.5" SBR, and with an H or H2 buffer and mil-spec spring, I got a lot of jams on the feed-ramps (sharp). I put an H3 and Sprinco Blue spring in, and the jams were MUCH less frequent, as the casings were bent like bannana’s but jammed into the chamber anyway and fire-formed. (Noveske has since made things right!). So, I have seen first-hand that a slightly over-gassed gun running heavy spring/buffer is going to be more reliable when things aren’t perfect.
Well, going to order in a day or two. Still leaning toward the carbine system. My only concern that anyone has voiced that bothers me is the claim that a 0.067" port on a 14.5" carbine will erode over time (5-10K rounds) and cause reliability issues before the throat is toast. Daniel Defense bevels their gas-ports and uses a good steel, hammer forged, so I am hoping that won’t be a problem, and I have never heard of a Colt 6920 which uses a 16.1" barrel and 0.063" port eroding so bad as to cause an issue, so…
You’re putting way too much thought into this…
Just as an FYI, DD opened up the gas port on their barrels precisely because of the issues that people were having who wanted to shoot Wolf/Tula/Brown Bear. KAC had to do the exact same thing with the SR15… I don’t understand people who spend $1.5-2.5K on a rifle and another $2K on accessories only to shoot the crappiest ammo available. But, hey, who am I to tell people how dumb their financial decisions are?
My DD XV is from 2009, when they first began manufacturing rifles. And I can tell you, even though it is carbine gas, it simply does not like Wolf. Mine will short stroke about once every few dozen rounds. I’ve been meaning to swap out to a carbine buffer when I use crummy ammo, but I haven’t shot crappy ammo out of it in awhile so I haven’t felt the need to.
I don’t know why you’re putting in this much thought into a rifle that you’re going to use to shoot Wolf ammo out of. You’re not going to shoot to a high level of performance with it, regardless of whether or not you have a CHF or SS barrel, a free float or non-free float rail, or a Swarovski or a Bushnell scope.
Buy a Colt 6921 upper from Grant and be done with it.
Here’s a link to help you along:
http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=LE6921CK
That is a SMOKING deal, btw. A genuine Colt upper with a Colt BCG and charging handle, along with a flip-up BUIS? Absolutely smoking deal…
Smoking deal, but not what I’m after. Great deal, though! Amazing deal, really!!!
The issue isn’t the volume of ammo–the issue is the amount of Wolf being shot relative to the total volume being shot. If you shoot 4,500 rounds of Wolf for every 500 rounds of M193 or Mk262, it makes no sense to build a high cost rifle to shoot only that 500 rounds… the rifle should be built around the primary type of ammo being shot through it.
With this in mind, a plain jane 4150 chrome-lined 1/7 twist carbine barrel paired up with a Colt recoil spring and a carbine or H-buffer will be more than sufficient for the task at hand.
As far as I am concerned, a rifle built primarily for Wolf should be a relatively inexpensive beater gun.
To do otherwise is akin to buying a Lamborghini and only putting premium gas in the tank once or twice a year.
Semantics aside, I’d rather build 1 rifle instead of two. I didn’t see much of a downside to a 14.5/Carbine system, so that’s what I went with.
I agree. What brand/model did you choose?