I didn't want to divert the other AR thread, but I am curious. I also ran a search, and it appears that this has never been explicitly discussed here.
Does the mid length offer real, significant, and quantifiable benefits over the carbine length in terms of durability, longevity, and usability?
I'd like to hear from the SME's, but if anyone else has input, I'd appreciate that too.
Sight radius is obvious, so I think we can skip that one.
All the world's a lathe.
I'm not an SME, but I'm pretty familiar with the topic.
Look, the honest answer to your question is "no".
I say that because there are mountains of real data on 20" rifle systems, 14.5" and 16" carbine systems, and 10.3" carbine systems. This is all real-world data. There is not much info about mid-length systems outside of training schools and private company testing.
I am not saying that there's anything wrong with a mid-length AR. I have one. But there isn't anything so awesome about them that they blow something else out of the water.
Longer iron sight radius? Yes, that's true. Longer 9" handguard? Yes, that's true. Softer felt recoil? True on paper but highly subjective. Operation at lower pressure thereby less "wear and tear" on the gun? True on paper but where is the mountain of actual hard data to compare? It doesn't exist.
I think 16" middy ARs are just dandy. I do think that 14.5" middys are starting to push it reliability-wise, especially when you factor in Obsessive Buffer Tweaking Syndrome.
A mid length AR runs at a lower pressure and will have a slightly different recoil impulse, one that some prefer. It is also alluded to that there will be less "stress" on part and some parts will last longer. I am unaware of any testing performed at any volume to prove this to be correct.
What we do know is that if you buy a Daniel Defense or BCM mid length gun you will get a good gun. If you get a 16" or longer gun the mid length should have zero issues and might feel a little better when shooting.
When someone who is buying brand new asks which $1000 gun to go with, BCM carbine or BCM mid length I always say mid length. If you have a carbine gun just shoot it and forget all about the minutia that makes very little difference when you actually get to the range.
Think for yourself. Question authority.
I personally stick with the guns with proven track records over the long haul.
Buy whatever suits your fancy.
You can get much more of what you want with a kind word and a gun, than with a kind word alone.
Pretty much exactly what Jay said.
Originally Posted by Jay Cunningham
So, to recap, mids offer real and possibly significant advantages on paper, but these advantages can't be quantified due to the lack of hard data to demonstrate them, meaning they could very well be negligible, and I should quit worrying about it.
I think that's what I needed to know.
Last edited by TCz; 04-08-2012 at 09:04 PM.
All the world's a lathe.
To me the mid length is sort of the obvious next step in the evolution of the carbine.
Doesn't the HK IAR use a mid length system? Albeit with a gas piston. Or would the proprietary piston system make a comparison invalid?
I predict that if Colt started making a mid length gun, everyone who currently sack rides the 6920 would recommend the new mid length colt over the current carbine version. You know it's true. The many advantages are undeniable. The only disadvantage mentioned is lack of a huge track record, outside some training schools. OK, fine.
Would we recommend a midlength BCM or DD if we honestly thought they would be less reliable than their carbine brethren?
Last edited by fuse; 04-09-2012 at 12:50 AM.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. -George Orwell
"real and significant" may be over-stating it IMO but essentially, yes.
emotional outbursts like "sack ride" and overly-aggressive (and mistaken, incidentally) statements like "you know it's true" and "advantages are undeniable" belie a lack of confidence in your own position.
Provide quantifiable data to back up your claims that the mid-length is "better", and define what "better" means in this case. Otherwise, no matter how much you don't like the fact, it's conjecture (or, I suspect in this case, repeating of conjecture) and theory at best.
I don't think anyone is saying "don't buy a mid-length".
To be clear, I have nothing against the mid-length, don't "sack ride" anything, but also don't "sack ride" the theory and conjecture that the mid-length is better in any facet other than increased sight radius and extended handguards and may, in fact, offer potential (and theoretical) downsides.
I bought my first AR-15 style carbine roughly six months ago. It has a front sight tower. I put a magpul handguard on it. I have been thinking I would like the midlength hand guard better because it would give me more "rail estate" therefore more flexibility in terms of supporting hand position etc. That being said, I may buy another AR-15 (one is none and two is one). I have learned some things I like and do not like since I bought my first carbine. I think I would like a floating handguard with a folding backup front sight in lieu of a carbine length gas system with a front sight tower.
What do you guys think?
Reply With Quote