Long barrel for velocity or short barrel for moving?

[Tombs]

So go with a shorter device like the A2. Not the new hotness but they work quite well and you gain a couple inches of useful barrel.

My only argument against this is that I think there's far more effective muzzle devices, just that they're a bit longer.

I fully believe the trade off is worth it.

 

[johntheplinker]

My only argument against this is that I think there's far more effective muzzle devices, just that they're a bit longer.

I fully believe the trade off is worth it.

I don't know. The testing I've seen reported puts the A2 in the top 5 time after time. I've tried a couple of the supposedly better ones and quite frankly I couldn't tell any difference between them and the A2, not to mention some have drawbacks of their own. I'll stick to the A2 for my purposes, cheap, compact, and they work just fine, what's not to like?

 

[Ggreen]

It's been proven over and over that a shorter barrel with a quality muzzle device makes a more effective gun. You're not losing anything going 14.5 or 13.7 and Pinning and welding a brake on other than extra length and maybe 200fps. You will end up with a gun you like carrying and shooting more work the shorter barrel. Unless you're building a very specific match rifle or a 20" ar for ap. A 13.7 pinned to 16 will handle any sporting use in Indiana.

 

[johntheplinker]

It's been proven over and over that a shorter barrel with a quality muzzle device makes a more effective gun. You're not losing anything going 14.5 or 13.7 and Pinning and welding a brake on other than extra length and maybe 200fps. You will end up with a gun you like carrying and shooting more work the shorter barrel. Unless you're building a very specific match rifle or a 20" ar for ap. A 13.7 pinned to 16 will handle any sporting use in Indiana.

How do you figure? You're losing velocity, may not be much but you're still shooting a slower bullet. That little bit may not matter much up close but once you start stretching the range it does matter. Increases in drop and wind drift, and if its hunting then also energy. And yes, I've had a couple with a made up 16". They're all gone as are most of 16" barrels. I like a faster, flatter shooting bullet. A collapsible stock will get you back a little of the OAL, enabling a shorter compact rifle. I've been using shorter stocks for quite some time and find them to work quite well.

 

[Tombs]

I don't know. The testing I've seen reported puts the A2 in the top 5 time after time. I've tried a couple of the supposedly better ones and quite frankly I couldn't tell any difference between them and the A2, not to mention some have drawbacks of their own. I'll stick to the A2 for my purposes, cheap, compact, and they work just fine, what's not to like?

Try a BE Meyers 249F at night time.

How do you figure? You're losing velocity, may not be much but you're still shooting a slower bullet. That little bit may not matter much up close but once you start stretching the range it does matter. Increases in drop and wind drift, and if its hunting then also energy. And yes, I've had a couple with a made up 16". They're all gone as are most of 16" barrels. I like a faster, flatter shooting bullet. A collapsible stock will get you back a little of the OAL, enabling a shorter compact rifle. I've been using shorter stocks for quite some time and find them to work quite well.

As long as you're inside the effective range of the cartridge, more or less velocity isn't doing much unless you're shooting at armor.

5.56 with ball has a pretty short effective range regardless of barrel length due to the minimum velocity needed for fragmentation. With civilian expanding ammo, that point becomes kind of moot as the velocity sensitivity is far far lower.

Crippling your shooting stance by having too short of OAL will do more to hurt you than losing a couple hundred fps.

I'd also contend, unless you're regularly shooting at 300+ yards, you won't notice much of a difference between even a 10.5" and a 20" in drop. At least that has been my experience.

 

[Ggreen]

16 is only a magic number because a politician in the 80s thought you couldn't conceal it. There is a reason the mil is going 14.5 and shorter

 

[Tombs]

16 is only a magic number because a politician in the 80s thought you couldn't conceal it. There is a reason the mil is going 14.5 and shorter

The funny thing is, 14.5 isn't arrived at for velocity.

They had a volume limit. 14.5" was the magic barrel length that achieved acceptable noise levels. Before that I believe 12.7" was the most commonly used cut down length.