Thoughts on the AR 16" barrel with carbine gas system?

So it has been a while since I've built a rifle, and a buddy of mine has a brand new stripped Daniel Defense 16" CHF M4 cut barrel that he wants to sell me for cheap. This particular barrel runs for over $300 online, and he has offered it to me for $150(probably talk him down to around $100). I've read the Armalite article of the link between premature bolt lug wear as a result of the 16" barrel and carbine gas system in the past, but since it has been about 10yrs since I've considered a 16" rifle with the carbine gas system I'm wondering if the knowledge has changed. Would you guys bother with this barrel for moderate-to-high round count carbine step, or just pony up the extra money for a midlenth gas system on a 16" barrel?

That’s a good deal and if the barrel is fine, it’ll last a long time. DD makes great barrels. But I wouldn’t do it. There’s no reason IMO to not get a midlength system. It’ll shoot softer and last longer, especially if it’s an older DD barrel because they used to have unnecessarily huge gas ports. Plus, the M4/gov’t profile barrel is just stupid. Something with a continuous taper has much better handling characteristics. DD is often a touch more accurate, but I’ll take BCM’s enhanced profile midlength barrel all day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If it's a smoking hot deal, then use an H3 buffer and rock on.

Buy the smoking deal - good on you if you wear it out.

How many rounds a year are you going to put through it? Do you really think you'll wear it out? Even if you do it's not like parts will cause you to go bankrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bigghoss

How many rounds a year are you going to put through it? Do you really think you'll wear it out? Even if you do it's not like parts will cause you to go bankrupt.

---

I think for me it is more of a question of if I can improve the durability of the design(such as the suggestion of using a H3 buffer), so that I am less likely to get a parts failure in a defensive situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galbraith

I think for me it is more of a question of if I can improve the durability of the design(such as the suggestion of using a H3 buffer), so that I am less likely to get a parts failure in a defensive situation.

---

You’d have to put a lot of rounds through it for that to be a significant concern.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galbraith

So it has been a while since I've built a rifle, and a buddy of mine has a brand new stripped Daniel Defense 16" CHF M4 cut barrel that he wants to sell me for cheap. This particular barrel runs for over $300 online, and he has offered it to me for $150(probably talk him down to around $100). I've read the Armalite article of the link between premature bolt lug wear as a result of the 16" barrel and carbine gas system in the past, but since it has been about 10yrs since I've considered a 16" rifle with the carbine gas system I'm wondering if the knowledge has changed. Would you guys bother with this barrel for moderate-to-high round count carbine step, or just pony up the extra money for a midlenth gas system on a 16" barrel?

---

For a moderate-to-high round count setup, and if this is your only or primary defensive use carbine, I would get a mid-length barrel. Like Wake27, I favor BCM enhanced barrels. If looking for a somewhat more 'value' priced mid-length barrel, there are several makers you often hear getting good feedback at places like m4c for making solid barrels for a good price: Sionics, Ballistic Advantage, Faxon, and more recently, Aero Precision. I actually have a 16" Aero SS mid-length barrel on the way to test in an upper I'm putting together.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galbraith

So it has been a while since I've built a rifle, and a buddy of mine has a brand new stripped Daniel Defense 16" CHF M4 cut barrel that he wants to sell me for cheap. This particular barrel runs for over $300 online, and he has offered it to me for $150(probably talk him down to around $100). I've read the Armalite article of the link between premature bolt lug wear as a result of the 16" barrel and carbine gas system in the past, but since it has been about 10yrs since I've considered a 16" rifle with the carbine gas system I'm wondering if the knowledge has changed. Would you guys bother with this barrel for moderate-to-high round count carbine step, or just pony up the extra money for a midlenth gas system on a 16" barrel?

---

If you don't buy it for $150 I will, and I hate M4 contour barrels.

Since you're building, you could always go with a VLTOR A5 setup with the DD barrel.

Unless you just like worrying about trivial stuff.

I'll take a carbine-length 16" with a properly sized gas port over a 16" mid-length with an improperly sized one -- or vice versa -- any day; that's a lot more important than which system. For most purposes, both work beautifully when properly ported, sprung and buffered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galbraith

I think for me it is more of a question of if I can improve the durability of the design(such as the suggestion of using a H3 buffer), so that I am less likely to get a parts failure in a defensive situation.

---

The M4 with its carbine-length system is one of the most hard-use, battle-proven rifles on the scene. This is a non-issue.

It works, shoot the crap out of it!

If you will not be building any new rifles for quite some time then I would pass on the DD barrel even at $100 since you really want a midlength. However, if that is not the case then as others have said, the M4 profile, carbine length system is a proven performer.
My current favorite set up is a Colt SOCOM 14.5 with a H2 buffer. I expect it will last quite some time...

I'd shoot the barrel first to see if recoil causes excessive muzzle jump. If it does then to slow BCG velocity I'd start first with a Sprinco Red buffer spring or a JP Rifles JPS-OSC buffer spring. If the BCG needs to be slowed further THEN I'd consider increasing the weight of the buffer because the added buffer mass increases reciprocating mass which in turn increases recoil.

Two words...

Adjustable Gasblock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wingate's Hairbrush

The M4 with its carbine-length system is one of the most hard-use, battle-proven rifles on the scene. This is a non-issue.

---

I agree about the M4, but I’m much happier with carbine gas on 14.5” barrels like on the M4 and midlength gas on 16” barrels like the OP described.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O4L

Two words...

Adjustable Gasblock.

---

For a hunting rifle sure.

Adjustable gas blocks are a point of failure and have no place on a serious use rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeavyDuty

...I’m much happier with carbine gas on 14.5” barrels like on the M4 and midlength gas on 16” barrel...

---

... and I'm much happier with a pinned 14.5" barrel than a 16"

Quote:

---

Adjustable gas blocks are a point of failure and have no place on a serious use rifle.

---

Bah! People used to say that shit about RDOs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shawn Dodson

Bah! People used to say that shit about RDOs.

---

Apples to oranges.

This from a guy who was running an RDO on an AR in 1990.

If you need adjustable gas, and most don’t with a properly ported barrel, you likely need a piston gun.

Seen the data, have the guns, and perceived some differences, but I can't get excited about mid vs carbine gas anymore.

I'm fairly certain that a carbine gas system with a 16" barrel is more about compliance with law rather than optimal weapon function. It's my experience that a 16" barrel runs a touch smoother with mid length gas and won't be as rough on parts. That said, I bought my first AR right when the ban expired in 04. It was a RRA carbine with a 16" barrel. It has since been sold, but even if I still had it, I highly doubt that I would have run enough rounds though it to experience any negative effects of that combination. I'm not even sure there were 16" mid lengths available back then.