4 Types of (AR-15) Carbines, John Chapman

[Kirk Freeman]

In the new issue of Shooting Illustrated copper/instructor/teacher John Chapman gives us a framework of Type I-IV AR-15 carbines.

As to myself, I'm a Type I kind of guy. I want them light, with a sling and light and nothing else. If the carbines are out, I know it is bad, very bad. I will be running and shooting past pistol range is fantasy or fun (if you like it, that's cool). Katana 1.0 is great for me as I am the target market, which is why I own one and have monkey copies made.

Not peeing on anyone who wants something that looks like it was dipped in the Brownell's catalogue because FU 'Murica or has lasers and phasers like you had in the Service (your money, your choice, each to his own, inter alia), just giving INGO an intellectual framework before they go making carbine decisions.

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2017/10/25/4-go-to-setups-for-any-defensive-ar-15/

 

[T.Lex]

Interesting. I'm down with that framework, and my defensive MSR is a Type 4 SBR.

The one caveat I would add to that framework, though, is a longer-range SPRish AR. A Type 5, perhaps. I have one of those that we take hunting. It doesn't REALLY do anything that the Type 4 can't, it just does the longer range stuff better. ("Longer range" being ~100-200 yds in this context.)

But, that kind of thing is somewhat beyond the scope of that article, which focuses on defensive ARs.

 

[Fordtough25]

Can't view the link at work but I did receive my new copy last night and this makes me want to read it even more!

 

[indiucky]

I feel kind of dumb because my favorite AR 15 (and the one I would grab) is a standard Bushmaster A2....I have two flat tops but I just can't seem to love them...Try as I might.....

I just keep it simple....I did add a Hogue grip.....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I knew it. Someone was going to bring up their Bushhampster. I just knew it.

If you like it, shoot it. It's all about freedom.

 

[223 Gunner]

I am a type 1 and type 2 guy myself.

 

[Woobie]

I'll have to read this later, but I went on a mental journey along these lines last year. I started to consider what I really needed in a carbine. And it came down to iron sights (A2, because they're still the best) a VTAC sling and a light mounted to the front sight post. I don't even have a rail, just the plastic CAR-15 handguard. And I absolutely love it. Light, fast, reliable, and didn't murder my bank account.

 

[rhino]

Here's a gem that needs repeating (my emphasis added in red), especially given the experience level of Mr. Chapman:

For those who pay attention to the cacophony of noise on the internet, there may be some confusion as to the advisable power and quality of a carbine-mounted flashlight. My opinion, based on years spent searching buildings, yards, fields, sheds, cars, henhouses, trailer homes and department stores looking for people who wouldn’t mind killing me, is that you can never have too much light. The minimum power of light I allow on my carbines is 500 lumens. Period. I have never “blinded” a teammate or myself by shining my light on a white wall or any other such nonsense.

I agree 100%. The light that is currently attached to my rifle produces 1000 lumens.

I'm a Type II. If it's dark and I'm using the light, irons work really, really well. Otherwise, the red dot is faster for pretty much everything and is more forgiving of head position/cheek weld than are iron sights.

 

[Ggreen]

I feel kind of dumb because my favorite AR 15 (and the one I would grab) is a standard Bushmaster A2....I have two flat tops but I just can't seem to love them...Try as I might.....

I just keep it simple....I did add a Hogue grip.....

Nothing wrong with the standard a2 for a defensive rifle. I have seen the downsides to a2 configurations in a carbine skill & drills course I took. Slower to manipulate around cover, harder to shoulder when shooting cross body while moving, the carry handle seemed to make extreme close targeting more difficult than our bui's, but by the end of the course he was as on as the rest of us were. The carbines are just a bit better suited for the close quarter stuff we were doing in that class, and have the versatility to reach out when needed. But a gun that doesn't feel right in your hands will be useless when ANTIFA is trying to take over your neighborhood on Nov 4.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Otherwise, the red dot is faster for pretty much everything and is more forgiving of head position/cheek weld than are iron sights.

Unless you have a zombie eye and concentrated light is a halo to your undead eye.

 

[Tombs]

I never understood the variable power game, messed with a lot of them and end up leaving them on the highest power all the time anyway, even at close range. And at maximum magnification the eye box and field of view on almost all of them diminishes so poorly it ends up feeling awkward, even on the $2k+ optics. Head out to an NRA convention and test out every piece of glass at the show and then lastly pick up a trijicon acog TA31 and you'll see why it's just a better solution if you want magnification on a carbine.

If you need a "red dot" compromise, just get a lens cover and use the illumination with both eyes open, it's good enough. With bright enough illumination you don't even need a lens cover.

The eyebox and field of view of a fixed power is just so much nicer, as is the durability and reliability. Optimize your rifle for one special purpose, and work around its disadvantages elsewhere.

Red dots flat out don't work with my eyes, so glass is a must.

 

[rhino]

Unless you have a zombie eye and concentrated light is a halo to your undead eye.

Which I do not, so . . .

 

[Ggreen]

I'm a Type 2 guy, although I'd like to be a type 3 with a TA31 just cant stomach the cost at this point. I have both of my 556 carbines equipped similarly with eotech exps2's one is a stag piston m4 with the standard plastic handguard and the other is a saint that I'm working on replacing with something bcm or dd once the right trade comes along. My sling is a 2 point Blue Force padded Vickers with qd's so it is easy to swap between rifles. I only have a light on my 45 acp ar pistol which would be a type 2 with a meprolight m21t. My 300blk is cheap type 4 with an overpowered scope that I use for deer hunting. I have another type 2 in 50 Beowulf but I don't keep magazines loaded for it. It's more of a "no no no AR's don't kick, here try this one"... It may become my deer rifle if I decide to convert my 300blk into a more defensive style carbine.

 

[rhino]

I never understood the variable power game, messed with a lot of them and end up leaving them on the highest power all the time anyway, even at close range. And at maximum magnification the eye box and field of view on almost all of them diminishes so poorly it ends up feeling awkward, even on the $2k+ optics. Head out to an NRA convention and test out every piece of glass at the show and then lastly pick up a trijicon acog TA31 and you'll see why it's just a better solution if you want magnification on a carbine.

If you need a "red dot" compromise, just get a lens cover and use the illumination with both eyes open, it's good enough. With bright enough illumination you don't even need a lens cover.

The eyebox and field of view of a fixed power is just so much nicer, as is the durability and reliability. Optimize your rifle for one special purpose, and work around its disadvantages elsewhere.

Red dots flat out don't work with my eyes, so glass is a must.

Have you done much shooting with a variable that goes down to a real 1X (or close to it), or just looked through them? I've been using them since the mid 1990s (back when people outside of 3-gun laughed at the idea) and it works well.

Re: covering the end of an ACOG and using the chevron ... that's the Bindon Aiming Concept, which dates back to the original occluded red dot sights. In my experience as well as observing other people trying to do it with an ACOG, it's okay if you're taking your time. I've met one person who could do it effectively going at a speed that I consider "fast." Most of the others have groups offset to the side of their perceived point of aim. I think it will do in an emergency, but it's not something I would actually plan to use even if I could do it effectively.

 

[Tombs]

I'm a Type 2 guy, although I'd like to be a type 3 with a TA31 just cant stomach the cost at this point. I have both of my 556 carbines equipped similarly with eotech exps2's one is a stag piston m4 with the standard plastic handguard and the other is a saint that I'm working on replacing with something bcm or dd once the right trade comes along. My sling is a 2 point Blue Force padded Vickers with qd's so it is easy to swap between rifles. I only have a light on my 45 acp ar pistol which would be a type 2 with a meprolight m21t. My 300blk is cheap type 4 with an overpowered scope that I use for deer hunting. I have another type 2 in 50 Beowulf but I don't keep magazines loaded for it. It's more of a "no no no AR's don't kick, here try this one"... It may become my deer rifle if I decide to convert my 300blk into a more defensive style carbine.

A TA31 is worth every penny and is honestly an insanely good value.

Though they don't advertise it, it uses schott Bk4 and Bk7 glass, normally you'd only find that glass in scopes that are WELL north of $2000. Yet you can pick up a TA31 new for under a grand if you shop around.

Some of the brightest glass I've ever seen, and I've seen about everything at this point.

Have you done much shooting with a variable that goes down to a real 1X (or close to it), or just looked through them? I've been using them since the mid 1990s (back when people outside of 3-gun laughed at the idea) and it works well.

Re: covering the end of an ACOG and using the chevron ... that's the Bindon Aiming Concept, which dates back to the original occluded red dot sights. In my experience as well as observing other people trying to do it with an ACOG, it's okay if you're taking your time. I've met one person who could do it effectively going at a speed that I consider "fast." Most of the others have groups offset to the side of their perceived point of aim. I think it will do in an emergency, but it's not something I would actually plan to use even if I could do it effectively.

The OEG concept requires practice. You can not sit and stare at the reticle or your POI will shift dramatically as your eyes drift together. Your eyes need to stay parallel to the target for it to be accurate.

Snap the rifle up and as soon as you see red, fire. If you spend ANY time hunting for the reticle or the target, your eyes will misalign making it useless. Now that's not such a big deal if you're just shooting indoors, but if you're shooting at like 15-20 yards the POI shift will get dramatic. But by 20 yards, you should be able to look through the scope with both eyes open and have no trouble finding the target, especially if it's bigger than a golf ball.

With a great easily repeatable cheek weld, it doesn't take long to get used to. With a bad cheek weld or a chin weld, you might as well forget it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Which I do not, so . . .

Is that really so? Is it? I ask you. Is it?

 

[Woobie]

I've used ACOGs and Aimpoints. They're nice and I can see the relative advantages of each, but neither does the other's job well. Conversely, iron sights do both jobs very well. I wouldn't have believed this without trying it for myself, but I shoot with irons at max effective range as well as I shoot with the ACOG. You do give up the ranging ability the ACOG gives you, however. And at short range, irons are awfully quick. I'm no operator, but I can't see any quickness gained from a red dot over irons.

I don't say this to contradict others' experience or preference. But if you don't have a ton of trigger time, spend some time with durable, non-electronic, versatile, simple iron sights. And if you do decide to move on to glass, you'll be a better shot because of the discipline iron sights teach.

 

[Tombs]

I've used ACOGs and Aimpoints. They're nice and I can see the relative advantages of each, but neither does the other's job well. Conversely, iron sights do both jobs very well. I wouldn't have believed this without trying it for myself, but I shoot with irons at max effective range as well as I shoot with the ACOG. You do give up the ranging ability the ACOG gives you, however. And at short range, irons are awfully quick. I'm no operator, but I can't see any quickness gained from a red dot over irons.

I don't say this to contradict others' experience or preference. But if you don't have a ton of trigger time, spend some time with durable, non-electronic, versatile, simple iron sights. And if you do decide to move on to glass, you'll be a better shot because of the discipline iron sights teach.

I don't buy the whole "shooting irons will make you better" argument.

With irons you don't see your heart rate visibly represented, you can't watch your breathing shifting your aim, you don't notice the stability or lack of stability you may have, and you never really see much of the target past about 200 yards.

I didn't start becoming a good shooter until I got into nice glass, and it taught me a lot of things about what I was doing, and that translated into me being infinitely better with irons than I was before.

 

[Woobie]

With irons you don't see your heart rate visibly represented, you can't watch your breathing shifting your aim, you don't notice the stability or lack of stability you may have, and you never really see much of the target past about 200 yards.

I have done all of those things with iron sights.

That's why I made a point to say I had no intention of contradicting others' experiences, because I knew everyone is different. I shot glass for years, but didn't get truly good until I had shot a few thousand rounds with iron sights.

 

[fullauto 45]

Uh, I have something in each.
I - Basic, iron sights.
II - Basic with a quick sight.
III - With a badass Nikon M308
IV - Night vision, laser, bipod
Depends on how and what I want to hunt.