I’ve ended up with two somewhat similar barrels but want to make two separate types of builds from them.
Here is what I’m after:
> 1 build with 16" stainless barrel and my 13.5" Noveske NSR rail for a more medium/long range setup.
> 1 build with 14.5" stainless barrel with pinned FSB, pinned FH and initially plastic hand guards for more short/medium range setup.
I’m thinking of having one of these barrels cut down to 14.5", rethreaded with an FSB pinned and a FH pinned.
The barrels are:
> 16" Global Tactical Recon barrel with 1/7 twist made from a Douglas blank. Mid-length gas system and heavily contoured to save weight sort of like Rainiers Medcon barrel. 0.750 gas block sizing. .223 wylde chamber. 416R stainless.
>16" Rainier Arms Select 1/8 twist. Not sure what blank they use. Mid length gas system. I think weighs an ounce or two more than the Global Tactical due to profile. 0.750 gas block. 5.56 chamber. 416R stainless.
Is it just flip a coin and doesn’t matter, or would one way or the other make more sense on which barrel is best suited for which service? I know this is another dumb question, but I really don’t want to buy another barrel and want to work with one of these to accomplish my 14.5 build provided the stainless can be cut, drilled, pinned, etc. Thank you.
Either barrel will serve you well. There is no practical difference between a 14.5" barrel and a 16". What one can do, the other will just as well. The only real difference between them is the 16" will not need a pinned muzzle device and will be easier to reconfigure later if you so choose to do so
Use the 1/7 twist for your long range set up. You will be able to stabilize the heaviest bullets with it. At least that’s what everyone says around here. Either one will work fine though.
I understand perfectly. But there is no practical difference between the two lengths for the mission described. Both barrels will deliver velocities close enough to each other that the usable range for both, for all intents and purposes, is the same. What will determine which rifle is better for medium range and which is better for close range is what sight you mount on them. Mount an Aimpoint on both and both will be excellent choices for close shots.
If a shooter were to mount a 2.5x10 scope in the carbine with the 14.5" barrel and an RDS on the carbine with the 16" barrel, it becomes obvious that the carbine with the 14.5" barrel is the best for medium range shots and the carbine with the 16" barrel and is a better choice for close shots- and vice versa
As was previously stated the 1/7 will do better with the heavier loads I think, and therefore probably better for the distance shots. If it was me I would also probably consider cost ( and cut on which ever was the least pricey of the two,) since they are both 16" and mid gas systems.
Will you be using the same ammo for each role, or specific ammo for specific deployments? The Wylde chamber is more for accuracy ammo and the 5.56 will handle more loads more easily.
Have you shot either barrel? One may be a laser, far outshining the other.
And for the price of cutting a barrel you can sbr your lower, to achieve your short to mid range rifle. If it were me I would take the most accurate barrel and make in into a 16" tack driver and sell the other barrel to start funding your sbr build.
ETA: 1/8 will do fine stabilizing rounds, unless you have some crazy 100gr pet load up your sleeve. My Rainier match barrel (1/8) makes 1moa 5 shot groups all day with Hornady steel match 75gr.
originally I thought to say leave the Rainier uncut as it was probably going to be the more accurate of the two. the 1/8 twist is preferred by match shooters. I’ve used 1/8 with bullets so long they wouldn’t load in a mag with excellent accuracy so the twist is not an issue.
but then I saw the Wylde chamber and started thinking this would be better overall for accuracy, so I was going to say shoot them both and keep the best one uncut.
but then, I realized we were talking about two midlengths and my honest opinion is I would not cut either one of them. a lot of people say there is nothing wrong with 14.5 middy but if you look at the dwells charts, 16" for midlength and 14.5 for carbine most closely approaches the sweet spot for reliability/durability with all ammo…
Okay, I just got the rainier barrel in hand and boy does it feel heavy compared to the Global Tactical barrel. That profiling under the hand guard area knocks basically 4 oz off which doesn’t sound like much but it sure is noticeable.
Rainier barrel weighs in at 32 & 3/4 oz
Global barrel weighs in at 28 & 1/8 oz
Rainier match stainless gas block weighs in at 1 & 5/8 oz
BCM steel gas block weighs in at 1 & 3/8 oz
Does this gas port look normal?
Also, answered my own question on which barrel to pair with the Noveske NSR. The NSR barrel nut will not fit all the way down on the global tactical barrel. The inside diameter is just a hair too small to fit fully onto the profile of the global tactical barrel right at the barrel extension. So, with that said, I guess it means I’d have to use the heavier Rainier, which seems way too heavy for this setup with the light weight NSR rail. It doesn’t feel balanced to me as is. Cutting it down to 14.5" would shave about 2 or 3 oz off based on the weight of the same barrel line in 14.5. Also, if I had the barrel re-profiled under the hand guard area, it would shave another few oz off, which might make it balance better. Not sure though.
For kicks and giggles I did a mock up of what the rainier select barrel would look and feel like:
Balance doesn’t feel as off as I thought it would, but then again it does feel nose heavy to me. Not sure if putting in bolt carrier and charging handle will make any difference but as you can see they were not installed for picture. Nothing is staked as I’m simply mocking it up to get a feel for the barrel and hand guard.
Complete rifle as shown (minus sling) with bolt carrier group, charging handle and rainier match gas block added comes in at only 6.8 lbs. Not too bad total weight wise if I could get the balance a little more towards center.
