Do-All Carbine - More Possible than ever?

[GJM]

Would you also want a pre zeroed Aimpoint in a QD mount to go in the carbine bag, along with some spare mags, etc.?

[breakingtime91]

Would you also want a pre zeroed Aimpoint in a QD mount to go in the carbine bag, along with some spare mags, etc.?

I don't know if my opinion matters but I am becoming more of the opinion that variables can be just as fast and reliable as a micro. I still would run a micro on a shot gun though.

[Chuck Haggard]

I think there is a lot of wiggle room there, and I tend not to put too much stock in the "SME" take because of that. I was in a class with Defoor and he said there that te 12" (his term, not sure if he meant 12.5 or what) was the best general purpose barrel length. I prefer to think of their opinions as reference points rather than gospel.
https://www.facebook.com/30321077899...type=3&theater

Either way, absent the desire to suppress, I think the 16" would probably be a better bet, although I'm not sure what you really gain with that length. In 2015 shorter barrels can, and do, run reliably without issue, and the added MV gained with a 16" barrel doesn't really translate into any added benefit for most civilian users (including, most likely, most LE).

Cans mean shorter gun is better, I concur, IF that fits your "general purpose" mission.

Around here my GP gun would need to handle prairie dogs, deer or antelope out to maybe 200, coyotes to 4-500 sometimes, so longer range civilian needs can be legit. Thus, IMHO, more velocity=more gooder. One can easily see how that would work for .mil guys shooting at bad guys way out yonder.

I could easily see a use for an M16a4 type gun with a free float tube and a collapsable stock in much of the work I would need a GP carbine for, for me, for my needs.

[John Hearne]

For a GP gun I'm a big fan of the 16" barrels. Guys like Kyle DeFoor, Kyle Lamb and Frank Proctor have stuck with those for the ability to reach out while still being short enough to work indoors. I've been through probably well over a thousands doors with a 16" carbine, never had an issue taking guns that size indoors.

I started out with a 20" fixed stock gun. It was a PITA inside of vehicles and was a bit much for structures. I subsequently went to a 16" gun and later a 14.5" gun both with adjustable stocks. All of the "win" was at the 16" length and the adjustable stock. I've never noticed any difference between 14.5" and 16".

Now, the 11.5" gun was really sweet but it seems to me it is a dedicated short range tool once you think about the ballistics. It is an absolute dream in an around vehicles.

[Chuck Haggard]

The 11.5s are nice as far as indoor handling, I just prefer to have the longer gun most of the time.

Even at some very intense stuff indoors in a tight team environment, say the DARC LECTC, I never had an issue with the 16" gun

[Surf]

We utilize 65 M4A1's. When the need arose for new barrels and bolts we went from 14.5 to 10.5 on 50 rifles with the plan of adding suppressors. Suppressors hasn't happened yet and may never. I run the a 10.5, 12.5, 14.5, 16 and 18 with great regularity. Work rifle is a 10.5 so that is what I use mostly at work which involves mostly doing entry into structures so the 10.5 is nice, but if I were on perimeters, in patrol I would opt for a 14.5 or 16. In all honesty I don't find a huge difference using a 14.5 or 16 indoors. We also do a lot of vehicle Dig Pro work and the 10.5 is tops no doubt. The biggest advantage to the 10.5 (remember not suppressed) quite honestly is the weight savings as we are often slung up for hours on end and it is quite noticeable as the time passes.

As for the 12" being the best "all around" length and yes this argument has been around a long time, I honestly cannot tell much difference in something like a 10 vs a 12. I feel that the 14.5 is all I would ever really need at longest distances that I will be shooting and will pretty much max out the 5.56. Anything more and I would generally opt for another caliber. So if I am going shorter than 14.5 compactness and weight would be my priorities, so I would personally opt for short. Yes I understand the arguments about ballistics, suppressors, reliability, etc which is often discussed in relation to this topic.

[HCM]

We recently began transitioning from 14.4" M4s to 11.5" heavy barrels. New guns will be 11.5" colts and our older Colts are getting refurbished - new springs/ barrels / Bolts etc. I just turned in my 14.5" M4A1 for an 11.5 rebuilt on an M16A1 lower. My only complaint is in came with a new Eotech instead of an H-1.

For our uses, inside vehicles, houses and outside to 100-200 yards the 11.5 does everything we need done and will alleviate some of the weeping and wailing over the MP5s going away.

[rob_s]

I think the other benefits (theoretical, probably) of the 12.5" over the 10.5" or 11.5" is the wear on the can, *slightly* better MV and all that comes with it, and a perceived improvement in reliability.

If I'm going to own more than one AR, I think maybe the potential benefit of the 12.5 goes away and, for non-professional use/purchase, having the 16" non-NFA gun and a 10.5" dedicated suppressed gun starts to look attractive. Then, add in an 11.5" for a dedicated non-suppressed gun for the benefits you mention (largely weight, as well as weight distribution). All of that thinking is what led me to think I *needed* three guns (well, that and the fact that I have three lowers that I probably can't/wouldn't sell, and that having a gun that runs suppressed/unsuppressed is kind of against my religion), but I'm not thinking I can truly get it all done with the 12.5".

However, and back to the OP, I wouldn't be considering it without the advancements I listed. 10, or even 5, years ago I would want at least two guns.

[HCM]

I would want two guns on GP - the whole 2 is 1 thing.

I would also want a dedicated 16" (or pinned 14.5) because Interstate travel with NFA is a hassle.

[rob_s]

Around here my GP gun would need to handle prairie dogs, deer or antelope out to maybe 200, coyotes to 4-500 sometimes, so longer range civilian needs can be legit. Thus, IMHO, more velocity=more gooder. One can easily see how that would work for .mil guys shooting at bad guys way out yonder.

I could easily see a use for an M16a4 type gun with a free float tube and a collapsable stock in much of the work I would need a GP carbine for, for me, for my needs.

That's all a good point. I should couch that I'm not really talking mil or other issue guns as those discussions are really only applicable to the people doing the buying, which is a pretty tiny number of people, and I ain't one of that tiny group.

Would a coyote not fall to a good projectile from a 12.5" gun? I'm asking because I don't know. I'm in SE Florida, and with just over an acre I wouldn't be shooting one that far. Nor am I likely to encounter a 200 yard shot on a deer, or a deer large enough to not notice a .223 from a 12.5" gun.

and, I should say, that there are probably some things that the AR wouldn't work for at all. For example, I'd be much more likely to shoot said coyote on said acre with a bolt-action suppressed .22 for a variety of reasons. Much more likely to shoot said deer with an unsuppressed .308, again reasons vary. So when I say "GP AR" I really mean "GP for any P where I might otherwise already want an AR, not Ps where I wouldn't use an AR to begin with".