I'm just going to say it

[Mike C]

@Casual Friday, probably... wouldn't be the first time.

ETA:
What specifically was your point? I do find there is an appreciable difference between a rifle of greater accuracy vs one that is not. When you are talking hallway distances okay fine I get that, (or maybe I don't get the point of this discussion at all). When we are talking ranges of greater than 100 meters particularly from non conventional or unsupported shooting positions and standing there is a difference. I am not trying to be contrarian but I'd like to understand. If it's sarcasm maybe my meter is broken this morning but an argument for a lesser accurate carbine designed for use at intermediate ranges seems pointless.

[Casual Friday]

@Casual Friday, probably... wouldn't be the first time.

ETA:
What specifically was your point? I do find there is an appreciable difference between a rifle of greater accuracy vs one that is not. When you are talking hallway distances okay fine I get that, (or maybe I don't get the point of this discussion at all). When we are talking ranges of greater than 100 meters particularly from non conventional or unsupported shooting positions and standing there is a difference. I am not trying to be contrarian but I'd like to understand. If it's sarcasm maybe my meter is broken this morning but an argument for a lesser accurate carbine designed for use at intermediate ranges seems pointless.

We're not arguing for less accurate rifles, at least I'm not. I've found that the difference between a 2.5" rifle vs a 4.5" rifle from a rest doesn't translate over when firing from the shoulder, for me. Two Sunday's ago I took my AR and AK to the range and the group sizes from 50-100 were indiscernible. The AR is nothing special, a PSA lower with a 16" BCM upper. The AK is a Romanian G kit with the chrome lined combloc barrel. From the bench the AR shoots groups half the size.

[Mike C]

Gotcha, I understand differences in shooter capability, needs, etcetera. Guess I'm just not picking up what others are putting down this morning. Thanks for the clarification.

[LittleLebowski]

OP was not saying that I'd not take a more accurate rifle. It's fairly clear.

[Mike C]

OP was not saying that I'd not take a more accurate rifle. It's fairly clear.

Yeah, wasn't clear but I've got that now. Let's chalk it up to cognitive issues this morning. Let the sarcasm resume.

[TiroFijo]

I don't need a 1MOA carbine for nearly anything. Whew! Glad that I got that off of my chest, thanks for listening

Hey LL!! ...next thing you are going to say "I don't need a pistol that groups into 1.5" @ 25 yds for nearly anything"

[45dotACP]

I suspect it is similar for a hunting rifle. 1.5-3.0 MOA groups are sufficient to kill game at any reasonably ethical range.

It's whether or not you can shoot that well from a field position that will determine your success.

All things being equal, a more accurate rifle is better. Of course.

But not all things are equal are they now? There is of course, much better variety in picking a suitable rifle nowadays.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I don't need a fantastically accurate carbine all that much, but my general experience is that the more accurate a rifle is, the more I will probably enjoy it.

But then, that's only true if it's also extremely reliable. I have a very small, very accurate carbine that is not as reliable as I would like and until I get the reliability issue resolved, I won't enjoy it much at all.

[NH Shooter]

I don't need a 1MOA carbine for nearly anything. Whew! Glad that I got that off of my chest, thanks for listening

Got me to thinking about what defines a "carbine" and how nebulous that definition can be;

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...rifle-defined/

In terms of precision, most of us realize that a shorter barrel is generally "stiffer" than a longer one (all other factors equal) which can actually improve precision.

In regards to the AR platform, I'm not sure where the dividing line is between a carbine and a rifle. Perhaps it defined as much by the length of the gas tube as the length of the barrel? Or are the only true AR "rifles" ones with at least a 20" barrel?

Does the carbine definition carry with it the expectation (and acceptance) of lesser precision capability?

In my feeble mind, the "carbine attributes" I appreciate the most are lighter weight and improved ease-of-carry. If it can also provide the same level of precision I would expect in a rifle, and can be fitted with a trigger and sighting system to fully leverage that precision, my reasons for carrying the longer/heavier rifle are mostly nullified. In combination with effective ammo, this IMO defines the modern AR.

[MistWolf]

When the M16 came out, it was considered a carbine.