Originally Posted by
MistWolf
No need to apologize. You brought up some good points pertinent to the discussion, albeit with a bit of hyperbole. There's a lot of ground between "what's ok" or "you can make it work" and "ideal". An M1 Garand for use at close quarters falls squarely in the "you can make it work" with the "if you have to" addendum attached. A 20 inch AR is "what's ok" and is a couple of Zip codes closer to "ideal" than the Garand.
However, things get a little fuzzier comparing a 16/14.5 inch AR to an 11.5/10.5 inch. Both are closer to ideal than a 20 incher. The shorties are closer to ideal than you give it credit and I would argue that it is just as ideal as the 16/14.5- more so (for my uses) when using a suppressor. Shorties are shorter unsuppressed (with more muzzle blast) and about the same length muffled and significantly quieter. Shorties, with their recent boom in popularity, have become much more refined than they were before. With that refinement comes good reliability and much improved durability. Even the 10.5 now has boring reliability. I've put a lot of rounds through my shorties in the years I've owned them. With the exception of being harder on extractor springs, they've been as trouble free as my longer ARs.
That may not be due to sharper recoil. Recoil with my shorties is no sharper than my 14.5 Colt SOCOM because they have proper gas porting, H2 buffers and good recoil springs. However, longer barrels smooth out the swing. The longer barrel usually has more moment (more leverage), slowing down directional changes. This means your muzzle travels less during recoil, decreasing shot dispersion and allows you to get back on target quicker.
All of this does not mean I argue against the longer ARs. It means I'm arguing for the shorties. I think shorties are as viable an option as the 14.5/16 inch ARs. More so for the average under achiever home owner than a Garand or double barreled shotgun, if you'll forgive the hyperbole:cool: