There seems to be much dislike for 16" barreled AR’s.
But, shouldn’t a 16" barrel be considered a good compromise between a 14.5" & a 20" ?
More compact than a 20", yet maintaining better velocity than a 14.5 " ?
Opinions ?
D.W.
Personally I like 16" as the best compromise. But I suppose it is all about personal preference, so if a guy likes 14.5, then 14.5 is the best for him.
I’ve never seen much dislike for 16" barrels. 
90% of the people I know who own an AR own one a 16" carbine or middy. 90% of the ARs I see for sale in gun stores have 16" barrels. If anything, it’s the 20" barreled “muskets” that are unpopular. Or so it seems to me.
I agree that 16" is the best all-around for just about anything most of us need or want to use an AR for. 20" is fine for a target or hunting rifle, but they can be a bit unwieldy at times, especially indoors. Most people don’t care to go through the added expense of getting anything sub-16", so the 16" barrel is where most of us wind up. And most of us seem happy with that choice. 
Derek
A 16" middy is about as good as it gets. It’s a great compromise between the 14.5" and 20".
umm well i dont think theres a dislike, people dont buy cause everyone else has it. Or atleast id like to think that, people should be buying their ARs for the purpose.
And i would think a 16" would be a good compromise between 14.5 and 20, they dont make a 17’'. What are you trying to compromise between the three listed lengths? its only makes sense, smaller length barrels will loose power and distance quicker then the longer barrels.
16" is probably the most popular size and all around best choice. Having said that I like my SBR and plan on building more in the future. It all depends on wants and needs. My 11.5" will do everything that my 16" will do at the distances I need to do it in.
I also recognize that if I am using it for anti-social purposes that I need to select the best ammo for that purpose.
I think the dislike for the 16in comes from the “looks” of the 16in barrel with 203 cuts, rather than the usefullness (word?) of it.
they’re too big for no benefit. the 14.5 is, in my opinion, the compromise… i wouldn’t go longer than that for a people gun. 100m is farther than anyone not in a sniper roll stateside is going to engage flesh targets. even LE snipers almost never engage that far, let alone farther.
so if we’re talking solely about anti-personnel “needs,” there is none for a 16" gun. if you want to throw “fun,” “hunting,” “sport,” etc, in there, then the conversation changes.
While I dont think they are to big, I do agree. The only reason to go longer would be a SPR type rifle.
I dont think there would be a 16in if it werent for laws.
16" is just fine for your average AR enthusiast, as others said its a great compromise for most shooting situations. I honestly wouldnt mind having a 14.5" barrel but I’m not going to go through the trouble of SBR’ing my rifle to lose a little over an inch. If I SBR it will be for an 11.5" or 12.5" barrel. Something like an MK18 clone.
Where?
Nothing wrong with 16" unless it’s an M4 profile. Just does not look right. I still prefer a 14.5" with a perm flash hider for a non SBR.
The balance feels better, looks more balanced and handles better. IMO
All I have now are 16 inch mid lengths. Perfect blend of compactness, function, and feel. But that’s just my $0.02 worth 
i’ve got a 16" recce setup and really like it although I have to admit if there weren’t laws and tax stamps involved and I could just have what I want I’d probably go for a 11.5".
the recce is really a very specific-need weapon… they’re basically just shorter range SPRs, but just as heavy and almost as cumbersome. i see a lot of guys building/buying them for general use do-everything guns, “go-to,” as a lot of non-go-to guys like to say, when it’s WAY too much gun for anything less than a DMR roll.
Bingo!
That says it all.
But still, I think it’s a stretch to say that there is “much dislike for 16” barreled AR’s." As others have pointed out, the 16" is really quite popular.
What’s more, even though the 16" length is popular because of the arbitrary length set by the 1934 NFA, what would be alternative? Would the 14.5" length be the most popular? That length was selected due to the military’s arbitrary requirements. So, it’s always something.
The 14.5" barrel wasn’t an arbitrary selection. During the initial development of the M4 they cut the barrel back & test fired it for reliability. The shortest they got before having problems was 14". They added a half inch to that to come up with the 14.5" specification.
I don’t know whether or not they did anything to the gas system during the test
what’s your source? the 10" commandos were the first m16 carbines.
Sorry to derail the thread, but what were the requirements? I never thought about where 14.5 came from. Was it simply that it produced the velocity they wanted and any shorter wouldnt?
we dont usually get a consensus on how exactly the M4 was developed as it was, even from the colt history buffs. it evolved out of issues of reliability, terminal ballistics, and compatibility with the m203. i think colt just responded to the mil’s requirements for a carbine m16 with an acceptable MRBF that would accept a 203- and colt produced the m4.