I think it is well documented that the 10" AR’s have served and are still serving our military admirably. Despite the stigma of them being somewhat finicky, when assembled and tuned properly they have shown to be reliable and effective obviously by our military’s tier one groups as well as many members here at M4c.
On the other hand, as far as SBR’s are concerned, the 10" guns seem to be the bare minimum length one should utilize for serious use due to depreciating velocity of the 5.56/fragmentation range and reliability issues.
If you have been keeping up with the SBR world I guess you could say, you would have noticed a trend over the past few years that shows shooters somewhat shying away from the 10.5" and steadily moving toward 11.5" and now recently the 12.5". Benefits include increased dwell time allowing for more forgiving ammo choices, less wear on parts as well more velocity. I think I even recall KevinB who is a highly respected professional, state he vastly prefers and 11" to a 10".
Given the trend toward longer SBR barrel lengths in recent years, I sometimes wonder why companies capable of supporting military contracts continue to have the 10.5" as their major offering in the CQB config. LMT, H&K, Colt (although they do offer 11.5"), and FN come to mind. Why is this? Is it something that the military specifies?
My guess would be that suppressed use of the weapon is why the 10.5" remains the standard as it keeps OAL down and with a steady diet of 77gr.,which the military is capable of sustaining, it gets the job done, so why change what works.
Does anyone foresee a change in barrel lengths in the future or would a caliber change most likely come before?
Nothing? I’ll admit I had a few beers before I wrote that post(nba finals and the stanley cup was on) but I still think the question has some merit to it.
Maybe I’ll rephrase it slightly.
Why is the standard CQB configuration still a 10.5" when there has been a move towards longer length barrels in the past few years? Has the military just not caught up to the times yet and they will in the near future? The answer may be as simple as the military specifies this length because they are perfectly satisfied with it, Im not sure.
It just makes me wonder when I see professionals and serious shooters on this site verbalize their preference for a barrel longer than 10.5" and companies that could possibly vie for military contracts with their brand new weapon systems, continue to produce their CQB carbine with a 10.5" barrel like the HK 416, SCAR, and ACR.
Just tell me if this is a stupid question and I’ll shut up and go in the corner.
its not a stupid question, it just has a stupid answer. if an established something works, even if there’s some glitches, it stays until there’s a strong compelling reason to change. the CQBRs work. adding different barrel lengths is just added complication, for an institution like the army.
The military marches to the beat of their own drum.
Some groups have been touting the merits of mid-lengths for a few years. Military does not care. They can’t chase every latest and greatest trend or fad that hits the market. Every so-called fix or improvement introduces new issues that need to be considered and addressed in some fashion. “Innovation” always has a penalty.
Also, on next generation weapons, the 10.5" reliability barrier is irrelevant, as they all use pistons, not direct gas
This is definitely understandable because it costs money to implement change and if they won’t see significant improvement from the change it probably isn’t worth it.
I figured they were working well enough and getting the job done because if they weren’t, there would have been a change.
This just leads me to believe that maybe the 10.5" isn’t as bad as perceived.
Mil uses what works, and don’t really change unless something breaks or becomes unserviceable NOT because there is something better out there.
The 10.5 may not be the best short gun out there but it still works in its intended roll. There is some innovation, too, like going to the DD RIS II rails for the shorties. Thats a newish rail not too many people are using but IMO is the best DD rail out there.
They are buying newer generation Aimpoints, and the relatively new PEQ15 is already being replaced. The LMT SOPMOD stock came from the Crane stock.
The mil does change with the times but its not always the latest and greatest. Sometimes they take things from the civilian world, and sometimes we take stuff from them.
as stated the military is very resistant to change. that being said i also believe that the higher ranking individuals in charge of getting us new shit are rarely ever the best guys for those jobs. often times those slots are filled by guys punching a ticket and are so far removed from the actual operational aspect that we get what they perceive to be the latest and greatest ie. the eotech, elcan or dare i say it…the scar.
That is a bold statement Sir. While I understand that there are many things which cannot be discussed over an open forum such as this which could lend credence to this claim, I do hope that you are prepared to substantiate this claim somehow.
Please share your specific concerns and I will pass them along to Gary and Greg. I will be happy to inform you of their feedback. Suggestions for improvement are always welcome.
The MK18 has set a really great standard for real application SBRs. THe one I put together at home and the ones I have worked on here have been flawless (not counting operator error)
That’s the winner. Back when the short barrels didn’t run as well we didn’t have extractor upgrades, chambers were often tight .223, buffers were carbine, barrels were often cut down and the gas port left small or drilled out to a ridiculous size…
