HD vs. GP carbine

[rob_s]

spinoff from the carbine basics thread.

The idea here is for those of us that have separate general purpose (GP) carbines and HD (HD) carbines to put them both through a series of drills that allows us to truly measure if one is better than the other for certain tasks, or if perhaps one isn't as bad as we assumed for certain other tasks.

First we need drills/tests that everyone agrees to. I suggest keeping them to 100 yards and in (if we want greater precision let's use smaller targets) due to the constraints that many will find at most public ranges.

BRM seems a good place to start
100 prone
75 sitting
50 kneeling
25 standing
NRA B-8 target

Perhaps a 1/2 & 1/2
1-5 (maybe at different distances and with targets further apart?)

[orionz06]

spinoff from the carbine basics thread.

The idea here is for those of us that have separate general purpose (GP) carbines and HD (HD) carbines to put them both through a series of drills that allows us to truly measure if one is better than the other for certain tasks, or if perhaps one isn't as bad as we assumed for certain other tasks.

First we need drills/tests that everyone agrees to. I suggest keeping them to 100 yards and in (if we want greater precision let's use smaller targets) due to the constraints that many will find at most public ranges.

BRM seems a good place to start
100 prone
75 sitting
50 kneeling
25 standing
NRA B-8 target

Perhaps a 1/2 & 1/2
1-5 (maybe at different distances and with targets further apart?)

1/2 and 1/2 as Kyle Lamb does it and 1-5 at 25 yards?

[Al T.]

Sounds like a plan.

I'm also partial to running TLG's FAST test backwards - 4 to COM, 2 to OC.

More to follow, got to run.

[JDM]

I like the 1-5 drill with further spaced targets idea.

[GJM]

I would be interested in what the differences are in set-up between the GP and HD carbines?

[Jay Cunningham]

Should we perhaps call the GP carbine the one that is supposed to be the "do all things well" gun, and use that vs. a CQB/HD specific gun and a "stretch your legs" (or whatever) kind of gun?

In my case it would be easy to say "mk18" on the one side and "recce" on the other.

[rob_s]

1/2 and 1/2 as Kyle Lamb does it and 1-5 at 25 yards?

I actually think the 1-5 has potential across a wide range of distances, provided a proper distance between the targets themselves.

We talk a lot about long(er)-range precision and close-in speed, and obviously the reason is that the close-in target is a greater threat and all that good stuff, but I don't see any reason you can't shoot the same target array at 100 prone, 50 kneeling, 25 standing, and 5-7 standing. I'd score between each one, but you're getting a lot done there.

personally, outside of testing and training (especially new shooters), shooting without a time component is somewhat pointless. As a non-LE civilian, if I have all the time in the world to take the shot, I have all the time in the world to run away. So in terms of proof of concept or comparing concepts I think they should all be timed. I do think we need a BRM test to set a baseline for each shooter/gun but beyond that I'd like to see timed events and I'd like to see each drill run more than once.

The only downside is that if we run the 1-5 multiple times at multiple distances you're doing a lot of scoring and pasting and expending a lot of ammo. We may need to make concessions for people who are limited on both, as we all probably are.


The question was asked re: GP vs. HD and what they mean, and I think we can be liberal with the idea. If your idea of an HD gun is a 16" midlength with an Etotech and your GP gun is an 18" rifle length with a 1.x-Y then that's your two guns. This is as much about you proving things to yourself as to anyone else.

My original HD/GP carbines can be found here, and neither has changed a whole lot since this was written nearly 5 years ago. and some of the changes I did make I want to change back I just haven't had time.
http://www.tacticalyellowvisor.net/projects---guns/a-tale-of-two-carbines

[Jay Cunningham]

I don't think there needs to be any kind of strict definition of the guns. I think the main thing is the control:

same shooter
same drills
same ammo type
same operating system

Otherwise, the point would be to see what the different configurations have on individual shooter performance. If you have a visible laser, or 1-4x optic, or a fancy trigger - or whatever - use it to its full extent. But you must have another AR-15 laid out in a somewhat different fashion to run the drills again.

[rob_s]

But you must have another AR-15 laid out in a somewhat different fashion to run the drills again.

Exactly. This is more about group encouragement to test the theory of our "builds" than it is about comparing ourselves to each other.

[TCinVA]

On Tuesday I went to the range with a buddy and for the first time in a couple of years I actually ran a few drills with the carbine. He had an LMT 10.5" with a Troy lightweight rail and a BattleComp on it. It's not set up how I would set up an SBR like that, but it was still a pretty handy little weapon. I was using my 6920 with the standard birdcage flash hider and a carbine-length DD Omega.

A few of the drills we performed:

- 5 shots to a 3x5 card at 7 yards from a low ready, safety on, in under 3 seconds.
- 3 shots to a 4" circle and one shot to each of 2 2" circles from a low ready, safety on, in under 3 seconds.
- 5 shots to a 3x5 card at 7 yards from a low ready, safety on, in under 2 seconds.
- 1 shot to a 1" square at 7 yards from a low ready, safety on, in under 2 seconds.

I mention this because I ran all those drills with both his weapon and mine, and saw no real difference in terms of handling despite the extra heft and recoil of my rifle versus his. (The BattleComp is extremely effective and his lighter, shorter gun actually had less felt recoil) He was likewise able to shoot to all the same standards using my rifle. 7 yards is close, but hitting targets like a 2" circle and 1" square at 7 yards with the pretty tight time constraints is not exactly a cake walk. When failures to meet the standard occurred, it was almost always due to using the trigger finger before the proper sight reference had been acquired or other human error like anticipation, not getting a good mount of the weapon/maintaining proper control, etc.

Funnily enough, the biggest problem I encountered was the fact that the ErgoGrip he had on his rifle sucked out loud to the point that it made it difficult for me to reliably disengage the safety at speed. The difference in the offset of his RDS at that distance versus mine was also a source of error, as the holdover for his dot was noticeably higher than the holdover for my dot.

Precision at 100 yards was difficult to measure between the two because for whatever reason his 2MOA CompM4 was displaying a pregnant dot at all useful power levels (bright daylight) where my reliable old CompC was displaying a perfectly round dot. That screwed with my ability to shoot consistently with his rifle at range.

From a pure handiness perspective, I dig the 10.5" gun. It would also be great for mounting a suppressor. From a shootability perspective, though, I've never really been able to find a difference in my ability to perform shooting tasks on demand with any of the popular barrel/gas system configurations. Now I freely admit that I'm not much good with a carbine because I don't use one and have spent relatively few hours training on one. It may be that at a higher skill level real differences emerge in one's ability to perform a given task with the weapon. My sample size was hardly scientific either...consisting of me and another shooter who hasn't really had much in terms of carbine training beyond the minimal sort of training one gets at many PD's in the nation. (Which anyone who has been through 2 days with Pat Rogers exceeds easily)

Still, I did find it a little bit surprising that either of us could perform to within the same standards even with very differently configured weapons. It would be interesting to me to see if people actually do come up with a measurable difference with different configurations, and if perhaps the differences that do emerge might be explained more by differences in what's strapped to the rifle than the rifle itself.

[peterb]

(The BattleComp is extremely effective and his lighter, shorter gun actually had less felt recoil)

What was your opinion of the noise/blast difference between the two setups?

[TCinVA]

A 10.5 inch gun with a BattleComp is loud. Rude loud. Much more noticeable BOOM from the SBR with the BC than from my 6920, which has more of a "normal" crack. It's no worse than 10.5 guns with other muzzle brakes I've been beside, though.

Even with the extra boom it was impressive that the gun just seemed to sit still during recoil. When you're doing close-in work, even on a target as small as a 3x5 card, you can rip off shots literally as fast as you can cycle the trigger and it just stays in place, even on such a small, light rifle. Very impressive.

[rob_s]

A few of the drills we performed:

- 5 shots to a 3x5 card at 7 yards from a low ready, safety on, in under 3 seconds.
- 3 shots to a 4" circle and one shot to each of 2 2" circles from a low ready, safety on, in under 3 seconds.
- 5 shots to a 3x5 card at 7 yards from a low ready, safety on, in under 2 seconds.
- 1 shot to a 1" square at 7 yards from a low ready, safety on, in under 2 seconds.


This brings up a good point which I think will need addressing, and that is scoring and reporting. I don't know that we can use par-times for this but instead may need to record fastest clean runs. If we're using par times it becomes a bit of a "good enough" scenario rather than a straight up comparison.

I've been trying to think of a way to test the maneuverability of the SBR many will say is their HD gun, and the only thing I can come up with is the 9-hole drill. Problem being not everyone has a VTAC barricade.

I'm open to suggestions relative to maneuverability. the 1-5 or 2x2x2 are good for measuring "driveability" but not so much maneuverability.

[Jay Cunningham]

I was thinking about the same issue, Rob, and I'm not sure on that one yet.

Another thing I was thinking about was having a buddy put out some targets at various ranges with shoot/no-shoot type stuff. Just how handy is that 1-4x (or 4x ACOG) for threat identification and discrimination?

Hard to work numbers up for those, but might be doable.

[rob_s]

Not sure if it's in the purview of this experiment or not, but the target ID thing is an interesting one to try and tackle. It's probably best saved for a Phase 2 of the project. The 9-hole may be a similar Phase 2 item.

For now let's try to come up with 5 standards or less we can shoot with both guns with minimal equipment. Let's limit the required equipment to three target stands, 6 sticks, 15 USPSA targets, and 100 yards for this Phase 1.

[ToddG]

This brings up a good point which I think will need addressing, and that is scoring and reporting. I don't know that we can use par-times for this but instead may need to record fastest clean runs. If we're using par times it becomes a bit of a "good enough" scenario rather than a straight up comparison.

PAR times create standards which are either met or not. The results will either tell you "both guns are adequate" or not. But if both are adequate, it won't do a particularly good job of saying which is best. It also requires you to establish PARs which can be difficult when dealing with significant numbers of people of varying skill level.

Reporting only "best time" is a mistake because it turns all of your other useful data into noise. Someone might have a personal best with one gun and run the other at his normal baseline that day for whatever reason, and your results get skewed heavily.

I'd recommend you try to find a limited number of drills that should showcase the (theorized) difference between the two guns and run them multiple times, establishing an average for each shooter for each gun. I'd also humbly recommend you avoid trying to deal with the maneuverability issue because almost any square range drill is going to involve having enough room (and no worry of crowding cover, etc) to make the difference negligible. The proof of the shorter guns' superiority in tight quarters, I'd think, comes from the folks who've spent careers operating in those tight quarters almost universally selecting the shorter guns. But I know less about carbines than I do quantum mechanics, so perhaps I'm totally off base...

[orionz06]

Right away I see the SBR+Aimpoint vs 16"+1x-4x as being the two main points of comparison.

So how do we play to the strengths of each? Both are likely using a chrome lined barrel so I have to question the real value in scoring a bullseye target. I think stretching out to 200m is required to show the impact on the SBR's zero. I think finding a way to play to the length of the SBR should also be done, perhaps using cover with a back wall? Set up a false hallway maybe?

[rob_s]

Right away I see the SBR+Aimpoint vs 16"+1x-4x as being the two main points of comparison.

So how do we play to the strengths of each? Both are likely using a chrome lined barrel so I have to question the real value in scoring a bullseye target. I think stretching out to 200m is required to show the impact on the SBR's zero. I think finding a way to play to the length of the SBR should also be done, perhaps using cover with a back wall? Set up a false hallway maybe?

Scoring a bullseye target has more to do with how the shooter performs with each optic. Even I can admit that I shoot tighter groups with a 4X than I do with an RDS, which may have as much to do with the dot size as anything else.

200 is too far, I think, for what most people have available. I myself would have to drive 2 hours for a 200 yard range. and there's a significant time-investment issue with shooting at 200 to walk back and forth, back and forth.

I think we can push maneuverability to a Phase 2. If we can't get people through enough testing to be meaningful with three cardboard targets then we're not going to get them to walls and barricades.

[rob_s]

PAR times create standards which are either met or not. The results will either tell you "both guns are adequate" or not. But if both are adequate, it won't do a particularly good job of saying which is best. It also requires you to establish PARs which can be difficult when dealing with significant numbers of people of varying skill level.

Reporting only "best time" is a mistake because it turns all of your other useful data into noise. Someone might have a personal best with one gun and run the other at his normal baseline that day for whatever reason, and your results get skewed heavily.

I'd recommend you try to find a limited number of drills that should showcase the (theorized) difference between the two guns and run them multiple times, establishing an average for each shooter for each gun. I'd also humbly recommend you avoid trying to deal with the maneuverability issue because almost any square range drill is going to involve having enough room (and no worry of crowding cover, etc) to make the difference negligible. The proof of the shorter guns' superiority in tight quarters, I'd think, comes from the folks who've spent careers operating in those tight quarters almost universally selecting the shorter guns. But I know less about carbines than I do quantum mechanics, so perhaps I'm totally off base...

Right, on all counts.

I don't want just a best time, I want all of the times for clean runs. We already do this a lot for the practice sessions I run. We'll run a drill 5 times or more but only count the clean runs , or average the scores for all runs (if we're doing score + time) and throw out any obvious disasters (such as a shooter running dry at the wrong time, or massive hardware failure).

If we get to maneuverability, the issue won't be so much is it better, but how much better. To use Tom's example, if I set up a Bianchi barricade with a fault line that is behind it SBR OAL + 12", or another barricade that distance behind it, how much faster is the time to engage two targets from either side with an SBR and a 16" gun? But again, I think this is Phase 2 if we get that far.

[Odin Bravo One]

Not sure a barricade provides an accurate assessment of the SBR's advantage over a 16" or 20" gun in tight spaces.

Another factor that won't be measured is effective range of each carbine. I'll let Doc cover the technical aspects of it should he choose to, but there is a distinct difference in how far I can effectively reach out with my HD SBR, and how far I can reach out effectively with my GP carbine. And in my case, it will be even more drastic as my GP carbine is 7.62mm.

[orionz06]

Not sure a barricade provides an accurate assessment of the SBR's advantage over a 16" or 20" gun in tight spaces.


If multiple barricades are used and a doorway and hallway is created I think it gets close, unless I am missing something.

[Odin Bravo One]

If multiple barricades are used and a doorway and hallway is created I think it gets close, unless I am missing something.

What are we using as the measuring stick?

There is a lot more to CQC than shooting around a corner.

[orionz06]

What are we using as the measuring stick?

There is a lot more to CQC than shooting around a corner.

Couldn't tell ya there. Any thoughts? Doorways may not even matter based on technique as well, all depends on what people do. I just know that a doorway is only so big and chopping 5" off the barrel is viewed as a benefit indoors due to such obstacles.

[Odin Bravo One]

I am thinking..........not sure there is a measurable method that is practical enough that most people can test it.

[rob_s]

Alright, so let's leave out barricades and maneuverability. Everyone seems to be in agreement on that.

Rather than continuing down the path of what won't work, let's get some suggestions on what will. Mine would be:

BRM
100 prone (I think we can skip the other positions as they probably don't matter)
5 strings total per gun
10 rds per string
NRA B-8 targets
scored (report # of Xs if score is 100)
GOAL: measure shooter's ability to accurately shoot with each gun.


1-5 drill
5 yards
5 runs total per gun
15 rds per string
USPSA Targets, 3 EA, 1.5 yards shoulder-to-shoulder, 3.5', 5', 4' to top of head, left to right
time & score (need to resolve the score debate)
GOAL: measure shooter's ability to drive the gun from target to target at close range.



1-5 drill
25 yards
5 runs total per gun
15 rds per string
USPSA Targets, 3 EA, 1.5 yards shoulder-to-shoulder, 3.5', 5', 4' to top of head, left to right
time & score (need to resolve the score debate)
GOAL: measure shooter's ability to drive the gun from target to target at short range.




1/2 & 1/2 drill
5 runs total per gun
30 rds per run
USPSA Target, 1 EA, 5' to stop of head
Time & score (throw out original par times)
GOAL: measure shooter's ability to fire rapidly at various distances



El Presidente - no turn
10 yds
5 runs total per gun
12 rds per run (start with 6 in gun)
USPSA Targets 3 EA, 1.5 yards shoulder-to-shoulder, 3.5', 5', 4' to top of head, left to right
time, score, and reload split time
GOAL: measure shooter's ability to perform emergency reloads & drive the gun

[rob_s]

What are we using as the measuring stick?

There is a lot more to CQC than shooting around a corner.
we're going to have to break everything down into minutiae for this to work.

But let's move on from the maneuverability thing since pretty much everyone agrees it's going to be hard to measure at the very least, and may not tell us anything at all but that we wasted a bunch of ammo at the very worst.

[ToddG]

I don't want just a best time, I want all of the times for clean runs. We already do this a lot for the practice sessions I run. We'll run a drill 5 times or more but only count the clean runs , or average the scores for all runs (if we're doing score + time) and throw out any obvious disasters (such as a shooter running dry at the wrong time, or massive hardware failure).

Just to clarify, clean runs meaning all hits or just "without a major uncharacteristic failure" such as those listed above? There are benefits to each, but they provide much different data.

[rob_s]

I'm open to either. It depends if we want to do time plus score or just time. If just time, then only clean runs count and we have to define what clean means for each drill. If time plus score then we have to define how we score. If we do time plus score, and assume score involves a time penalty, I think it's important to report time + score = total rather than just the total.

[ToddG]

If you're doing just time, I'd measure to first (or appropriate number) hit. That may require either steel or a spotter.

[DocGKR]

In 5.56 mm, Battle Comp's are designed to work well on 14.5-16" carbines; even the owner of BC does not recommend their use on 5.56 mm SBR's...

Sean is correct as usual on the other issues of an SBR.

For most GP use, it is hard to argue against the overall versatility of a 16".

[orionz06]

So if my GP gun is either a 16" N4, 6920, or random parts guns that are all 16" with varying gas tube lengths and either Aimpoints or Primary Arms clones what is the real difference between them and either my 11.5 or 10.3? I don't believe anything other than holdover, recoil (and I hate to even mention it), and possibly maneuverability.

[Jay Cunningham]

Paul Howe has some carbine and "sniper rifle" standards that could come in handy:

http://www.combatshootingandtactics.com/standards.htm

[Failure2Stop]

Many of the aspects of handiness cannot be measured on a clock.
I mean, they can be, but they are mostly related to "tactical tasks", and putting a tactical task on a timer puts priority to time instead of completion of task. What makes a 10.5 AR valuable to many is use from compressed spaces: shooting from a vehicle, getting into and out of vehicles (ground, air, and water), reduced weight, mounting suppressors without ungainly length increase, one-handed use while the other hand does stuff like opening doors or controlling people, etc. The aspect where is applies to "normal" people, as I see it, is immediacy of access, be it from under the bed or from a vehicle (though the probability of a non-LEO to pull an AR out of their car to provide multi-dose lead therapy is pretty low).

For me, my HD carbine is setup to be used as quickly as possible with a reduced need for support equipment, at a reasonable price-point, and still can be used outside the enclosure if I really want/need to.
It is a lightweight midlength DD upper with MOE furniture, a T1, and a RediMod with 2x 20 rounders stuffed with 75gr TAP (yeah, I'm out of date on ammo, but I think I can make it work :sarcasm:), and an M600.
It isn't the lightest gun I have ever picked up, but it's certainly not "heavy". I cut weight here and there to reduce the impact of the RediMod and extra magazine, and using 20 rounders helps in that aspect as well. No, I don't anticipate needing 40 rounds to handle anything within my caipability that can fit through my front door, but it is nice to have immediate access to another magazine in case of ammo/mag failure or to top the gun off if I do happen to crank off a few shots.
I don't have a sling on it (though I can easily attach one if I want to take it on walkabout) as I don't really need one for the HD application as I am 99% sure I won't have a secondary and even if I do I will just drop the non-functioning carbine on the ground or use it as a blunt-force tool. I don't mean to imply that slings are useless in that application, just that I chose to omit one on mine based on my preferences and particular circumstance.

Anyway, when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of the platform in an HD role I would base it on the problems that realistically would/could face the user in those conditions. I propose that instead of creating situattions that we envision will show one to be superior to the other, make the tests directly relevant to task, such as:

Immediate Application:
Scenario: Shooter is awakened by indication of breach, grabs bedside blaster for immediate protection of the bedroom and verifies that bedroom is still secure but confirms that there may still be intruder(s) inside the home.
Task: Secure pistol, grab carbine and support gear, prepare to barricade or move to secure critical occupants outside the bedroom.
Execution:
Shooter begins in upright position on raised platform (bed), with loaded pistol in hand, in dark room.
Secure pistol, grab rifle.
From bed, engage threat target at 3 meters with not less than 3 shots to the chest and 2 shots to a 3" circle in the head.
Score: points per second
Body scoring: each shot to the -0 or A zone is worth 5 points. Each shot to the -1, C zone is worth 1 point. -3, D zone is -5 points, misses are -20 points.
Head scoring: each shot to the 3" circle is 5 points, outside the circle but within the perforations of the head is 1 point, misses (including low misses) are -40 points. (Intentionally held to a very strict precision standard, due to the reality that if you have to shoot the head, you cannot afford to miss).

Four or five more scenarios, with tasks like precision at close range, one-handed use, manipulations, rabid animals, etc etc, as their focal point, I believe, is the path to blaze.

[voodoo_man]

^good stuff right there.

Realism-based testing is awesome.

[Jay Cunningham]

Great stuff Jack, but HOW do we do it? Therein lies the question.

[voodoo_man]

Great stuff Jack, but HOW do we do it? Therein lies the question.

Pen-test ?

Only with sim rounds and get your significant other involved.

;)

[Failure2Stop]

Great stuff Jack, but HOW do we do it? Therein lies the question.

Give me 18 hours.

[rob_s]

Sounds like an IDPA stage.:eek:

If the SBR isn't gaining anything more than "handiness", then let's flip it around and ask what the GP gun gains over the HD gun.

I was initially less interested in definitions across the membership as I was in simply getting people to test their theories about what made one gun better than another.

[orionz06]

If the SBR isn't gaining anything more than "handiness", then let's flip it around and ask what the GP gun gains over the HD gun.

Velocity and weight seem to be it. Pitting one of my SBR's against one of my 16" guns has the only difference being just that. Same optics, same grips, same stock, same trigger, different rail (13" TRX Extremes vs Lite Rails or RISII's), but the same position can be obtained.

[Jay Cunningham]

My current opinion is that we need an array of good drills, but that we don't need to all shoot the same drills. We just need individually to shoot the same drills with two significantly different AR-15 carbines and record results.

At least it's a start. We may be able to figure out a way to assess the intangibles later, but for now I'm liking Paul Howe's Tri Rifle and Sniper standards. One set is a bit different in scope than the other set, but with a few very minor tweaks the Sniper qual should be do-able with an AR-15.

Thinking for me personally to shoot both of these quals with both a 10.3 w/ Micro Aimpoint and a 16" recce with a 1-4x variable.

[ToddG]

The less standardized you make the data collection, the less valuable the data will be and the more questionable the conclusions. You're basically left with status quo: people telling you which they think is best based on their personally devised evaluations.

You could establish a number of tests with the realization that not every shooter will be able to perform every test (due to range limitations, etc) . But I'd recommend a core drill or two that you want everyone to shoot. Otherwise, you just won't get any reasonable volume of data.

[GJM]

As I understand this, aren't the two main differences red dot versus low power variable, and SBR length versus 16? If so, wouldn't it be easier to test just those differences, and if, for example, three to six shooters all got the same results, we could accept that those results on the differences likely apply to the universe?

[iakdrago]

The advantages/disadvantages of each would be hard to quantify.

Sure, we can measure accuracy, speed, transitions from target to target, in correlation to time.

What i expect these tests to show:

GNP (long gun):
--will be a little better on drills that require long(er) range due to longer sight radius/barrel
***with optics sight radius argument is moot--however the gnp rifle should still be inherently more accurate at longer ranges.
--will be a little better on single target "hose them" type of drills due to a longer gas/buffer system, as well as overall weight to absorb the recoil
--Or drills where the majority of the allocated drill time is spent actually pulling the trigger

SBR (HD gun)
--would be a little better where the majority of the drill time is allocated to transitioning from target to target. or moving the gun, due to having less weight upfront, thus creating less over-swing through momentum.

HOWEVER,

As SeanM pointed out--there is a lot of un-quantifiable advantages in CQB that an SBR can provide. The reasons, that most people choose an SBR over rifle/carbine, usually falls into that category. Though this project is ambitious, and very intriguing, I doubt that the proposed tests would be able to properly illustrate the main advantages of one over the other.


P.S. This also further illustrates the issue of defining a HD gun vs. Generap purpose gun. The above argument is built on the premise that the HD gun an SBR and the GNP one is rifle length/carbine length--with all else being equal. Adding other variables such as a "red dot" vs. a variable optics to different guns will further "pollute" the proposed test. Ideally, the test would define the GNP vs HD. Then the drills would be ran with "stock" GNP, vs "stock" HD. Then again with identical optic, other mods setups, and finally with the preferred sighting system/mods. However, even this level of scrutiny would fail to quantify that X factor that SeanM was talking about.

[iakdrago]

As I understand this, aren't the two main differences red dot versus low power variable, and SBR length versus 16? If so, wouldn't it be easier to test just those differences, and if, for example, three to six shooters all got the same results, we could accept that those results on the differences likely apply to the universe?

I completely agree, this test is way too ambitious, with too many potential data pollutants. Additionally we are assuming that the original shooter is just as proficient with both guns.

[Jay Cunningham]

I thought we were still in the process of working up parameters for the test.

[iakdrago]

I thought we were still in the process of working up parameters for the test.

Though the drills can be standardized very easily, the difficulty would be in picking out the appropriate drills. Since the drills are designed to "emulate" requirements that one would have to satisfy in either a HD, or more general shooting situation, i will leave that discussion to people that have more experience in actually employing their rifles on a two way range.

There is also the issue is standardizing the equipment. The big variables for me are the gun, the sights, other accessories.

The gun:
Some people will run an identical gun between their GNP and HD, but distinguish it with accessories. Some people consider a HD gun an SBR. A clear definition is needed.
This can be eliminated by limiting the test to SBR vs. 16''.

Potential issues:
Variances in each category: Not all SBR's have the same barrel length/profile. Similarly, not all 16" have the same barrel profile/gas systems.

The optic:
The optic/sights can be standardized fairly easily, but would require that each set up be ran with (1) irons as a baseline, (2)again with identical optic (3), and again with the preferred sighting device (ex: 1-4 optic vs. red dot).

Potential issues:
--The sighting devices have to be of similar quality: ex--comparing a tasco 1-4 to an aimpoint is not fair.

Other accessories:

This category includes but is not limited to all other accessories such as: slings, stocks, grips, triggers, muzzle devices, etc. I see such items as grips, and stocks/rails to be of the ergonomic variety. Ideally, these are already the same. The other accessories, such as sling, trigger, and muzzle device have a direct effect on the performance that we are trying to measure here. If there is variance in regards to the "performance" altering accessory--they have to be isolated. Each rifle would have to be tested wearing (1) accessory A, (2) accessory B, (3) and then with the preferred set up of either A or B.

What this accomplishes:
It tries to eliminate the difference in proficiency and individual preference to different set ups--creating a solid base line to measure off.

What it does not accomplish:
It fails to measure that X factor, that i referred to in my previous post. It fails to measure factors that can't be quantified in shots fired/hits made in X amount of time. The difficulty of measuring "those" factors, often relegates the discussion to academic theory crafting.

[orionz06]

So yeah...

I'm just gonna go to the range and shoot the house gun and the "general purpose" gun over a few drills and be done with it.

Piss on everything else.

[Jay Cunningham]

I think the original point is being lost.

The point is to run some set of drills (that can be measured) with a "purpose-built" AR and then run them again with some other AR to see how much (if anything) purpose-built gains you.

[Failure2Stop]

There is also the issue is standardizing the equipment. The big variables for me are the gun, the sights, other accessories.


I see absolutely no need to standardize anything. I am approaching this as a comparison between my HD gun and my GP gun (or whatever my other guns qualify as), and the crap I stick to each one, I don't care about anyone else or what they put on their gun.

It is a completely subjective and personal set of evaluations.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Jay Cunningham]

I see absolutely no need to standardize anything. I see this as a comparison between my HD gun and my GP gun (or whatever my other guns qualify as), and the crap I stick to each one, I don't care about anyone else or what they put on their gun.

It is a completely subjective and personal set of evaluations as I see it.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I pretty much share this view.

[TCinVA]

The question, I suppose is what you're trying to prove....that a particular configuration offers advantages/no advantage/minimal advantage to others, or whether or not you're proving that a particular configuration offers advantages/no advantage/minimal advantage to you.

It would be easier to come up with a series of drills that would give someone a useful metric to determine where they are than to come up with a series of standards that would work as objective analysis of a large group.

[iakdrago]

I was trying to take away the system familiarity factor. If i have more time behind Setup X, the inherent advantage of Setup Y will be lost, if i'm not as proficient with it.

[Jay Cunningham]

“Truth suffers from too much analysis.”
― Frank Herbert, Dune Messiah

[Byron]

Regarding the harder-to-quantify aspects of OAL and confined movement...

I'm just thinking out loud here, but I think it would be really interesting to set up a timed course-of-fire inside your own house, use a SIRT bolt, then run that COF with a 16" gun vs an SBR.

I'm not suggesting this would be anywhere near a perfect test, nor do I think it would translate between members, given our different home layouts, but it might provide useful data to the individual. And even though the findings wouldn't apply to me directly, I'd love to hear people's findings nonetheless.

I'm not saying this mimics CQB or anything of the sort, but it could at least give the user a better comparison within the environment where he actually plans to employ the HD carbine.

[Failure2Stop]

I was trying to take away the system familiarity factor. If i have more time behind Setup X, the inherent advantage of Setup Y will be lost, if i'm not as proficient with it.

I think that's an inherent part of the evaluation.
If you are better/more comfortable/more familiar with your GP gun, why isn't it your HD gun? And vice versa.

[Failure2Stop]

Before I get too into the weeds with the standards test, I think that there is something that needs to be considered.

In my opinion the greatest difference between what I consider my HD gun and my GP gun is the optic, and to a lesser degree, the support items I associate with it.

If anyone disagrees that the sighting system is the greatest factor in performance difference, I would like to hear your thoughts.
Otherwise, I am getting to the point of, "what are we trying to find out again?".

[TCinVA]

I agree the optic would be a major difference.

[iakdrago]

I think that's an inherent part of the evaluation.
If you are better/more comfortable/more familiar with your GP gun, why isn't it your HD gun? And vice versa.

That's more of an evaluation of your personal skill set than the equipment. Skill sets can be raised to take full advantage of the equipment. If you know 99% of the time that you would actually need to use your AR would be in a situation X, why not maximize it for that purpose. In addition to maximizing the hardware, the software needs to be up to speed as well. I would venture to say that most people practice for a "general" situation, with their "general rifle." Hence more familiarity with the general purpose rifle. Without creating a solid baseline--you can't tell whether you are having a hardware or a software issue when running both side by side on the same drill. Without knowing which to address, you are losing out on the full potential of the set up that is inherently better.

Additionally not everything can be measured in hits/time. Theoretically, when it comes to "hosing" down a single target on an open range, a 20'' AR with a rifle length gas system/buffer would provide superior shot to shot control over an SBR. That being said, i don't think i would want to have a 20'' AR for HD in favor of an SBR.


This will be my last post on the matter, as i feel that i'm beginning to frustrate everyone here.

[Failure2Stop]

I agree the optic would be a major difference.

But, aside from the vast difference between say a 22" varmint gun and a 7.5" PDW, is the optic the major difference?

[Failure2Stop]

That's more of an evaluation of your personal skill set than the equipment.

I think it's the evaluation of your skill set with the equipment that makes the evaluation worthwhile.

And I, for one, am not at all frustrated. You'll know I'm frustrated when I stop posting in the thread.

[iakdrago]

But, aside from the vast difference between say a 22" varmint gun and a 7.5" PDW, is the optic the major difference?

Definitely a quantifiable, and statistically relevant one when you are measuring things in tenths of a second.

In addition to an optic i would also add muzzle devices and slings.

Depending on whether you use a muzzle device or not can make a difference when comparing the two setups. Similarly, if you do have a sling on both rifles, the choice between a single point and a 2 point sling can make a difference in transitions.

[iakdrago]

In the end i want to pose a question to the OP--what is the goal? If this is designed more for personal evaluation to see what works for you at your current skill level--not much is needed besides running the two guns through a set of identical drills. However, if the individual shooter wants to see which set up (hardware) is better for a particular situation, the software needs to be normalized through a more scientific approach and formulation of a solid baseline. It's up to the shooter at that point to see if the performance benefits/trade offs outweigh the un-quantifiable factors that can come up in CQB/HD.

I for one, am more interested in the results of the second one.

[LOKNLOD]

In my opinion the greatest difference between what I consider my HD gun and my GP gun is the optic, and to a lesser degree, the support items I associate with it.

If anyone disagrees that the sighting system is the greatest factor in performance difference, I would like to hear your thoughts.


I would agree that the sighting systems become the primary difference. If you remove the T1 vs. 1-4x factor, it becomes largely a matter of ballistics due to barrel length, which is academic unless your test involves gel blocks and/or a remote island full of "missing" death row inmates, and that "handiness" gremlin which is hard to quantify with a shooting test (maybe the test for that is to carry each gun around 24/7 for a week, and see which one you hate less by the end).

ETA: If you really wanted to blur the lines, put a 1-4X on a 10.5 or 11.5" SBR. Other than ballistics downrange...where are the differences?



Otherwise, I am getting to the point of, "what are we trying to find out again?".

Beats me.

Are we trying to justify our desire to have lots of cool configurations by proving the "guns as golf clubs"** theory of having different ARs for different situations? Because I'm totally willing to admit I like having and shooting differently configured ARs no reason other than "I wanna". Sure, some are better for certain purposes than others, but I don't think any of them leave me totally unprepared.

The HD or long distance AR is not so far removed from the GP AR as to be a whole new species. It's just a more specialized version where some compromises are made to skew the performance toward one end of the spectrum or the other. Really, the specialized versions are compromises, but we tend to discuss the GP as if it is the compromise. I think that's backwards.

Visually, we talk about things like this:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/LOKNLOD/wrong-1.jpg

but I think things are probably more like this:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/LOKNLOD/lesswrong-1.jpg



**I think I stole this phrase from rob_s, used with credit but without permission

[TCinVA]

But, aside from the vast difference between say a 22" varmint gun and a 7.5" PDW, is the optic the major difference?

Based on my subjective feel from use of an RDS and a medium range optic (1-4x or similar), it would be the biggest factor in terms of the speed and precision with which I could engage a target under all conceivable circumstances....especially conditions of low light.

[jstyer]

The above chart pretty much sums up the whole thread for me...

Gotta love you some charts and graphs!