AR15 CQB carbine configurations, wich is "best" ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought briansmithwins outlined a pretty nice rifle if you don't want the NFA hassle. I do like the adjustable stocks though since it can be handy for everything from wearing a ton of gear to teaching others how to shoot.

I would recommend using normal handguards with add on 1913 rails that just attach to the handguard in the ventilation holes. Much cheaper and lighter weight then a full railed hanguard.

The DD 7.0 with aluminium barrel nut is actually lighter than M4 double-heat shield handguards with a GI barrel nut. The DD 9.0 with aluminium barrel nut is the same weight as plastic handguards. Other handguards that are within a few ounces of that are the DD Lite and Larue.

Not sure what a picatinny section weighs; but handguards and picatinny are going to be close in weight to the above named rails. The handguards will be cheaper; but the rails will free-float the barrel, offer better cooling, give a more stable attachment point and offer more versatility.

You certainly don't have to have one to do what you need to do; but depending on your needs and wants, it might be worth the extra expense.

I see that the options for configurations are gas block with sight, or just a picatiny rail.

Like most choices, this has a lot to do with personal preference. Some shooters find that even with two eyes open, a fixed front sight post obscures part of the view and prefer to run with a flip front. However, if the red dot fails, they will be slower to transition to irons. At close ranges <25yds you can just center your target in the dead optic and that will work will enough on IPSC targets to let you finish without transitioning to irons. The other issue with Picatinny gas blocks is that most are set-screwed and are more likely to come loose than a pinned gas block (although it usually requires some fairly hardcore shooting to shift even a set-screwed gas block). If your gas block shifts on the barrel, you now have a straight-pull bolt action. On the other hand, there are pinned lo-profile and picatinny gas blocks out there.

For people who aren't comfortable with the centering the optic trick at close range, using your dead optic like a large ghost ring with a fixed front sight, will let you make hits out to about 50yds on an IPSC target.

Some people aren't comfortable even with that and run fixed rear and front sights with the red dot so that they can transition to irons through the dead optic. If you do this, be sure to sight the irons AFTER you have mounted the optic.

On slings, I either run a single point or a two-point like the VCAS or VTAC slings. Zak Smith has a good article on slings somewhere that is worth reading.
 
Bartholomew: Thanks for the info on the light weight 1913 rails, have to look into that. Have you found any advantages to having the barrel free floated for close range work? I've thought about doing it myself to have the extra accuracy at long range, but haven't really figured out a benifit at close range? If I decided to go with a full rail setup I'd do it, as I might as well if I'm gonna mess with it at all :)



Zak's article on slings:
http://demigodllc.com/articles/tactical-slings/

I'd recommend poking around Zak's sight in general to anyone that hasn't been there, he's got a lot of good articles.

-Jenrick
 
I decided to Free Float my "fighting" carbine because you can never really predict the range at which you will need to be shooting.

Sure, a free float offers only a miniscule accuracy advantage at close range, but it also helps with cooling the barrel off faster which is something to consider when using a pencil profile barrel.

I also like that with a FF rail I can easily mount/use a Forward Vertical Grip, or even a bipod if so inclined, attach a light, and have my Eotech extend out over the HG when mounted in the forward most rail on the upper receiver (with M4 Handguards the front of the Eotech 552 and 512 won't have enough room to clear the handguards as the M4 style have more girth; with older/slimmer CAR style handgaurds its no problem).
 
Bartholomew: Thanks for the info on the light weight 1913 rails, have to look into that. Have you found any advantages to having the barrel free floated for close range work?

Not really, at least not in terms of accuracy. The rails keep the overall firearm cooler; but the rails themselves get hotter than plastic handguards if you run them hard. However you can add rail covers to the sides (or a vert grip) and still get good cooling while keeping the handguard cooler.

For me it was mainly a case of the free-floated rails being only a tiny bit more expensive than the non-free-floated. So I went ahead and got them. They are handy when shooting for accuracy and seemed to reduce my group size in general by about 0.5" at 100yds.
 
I picked up a Colt LE 6920 and added a LaRue 7.0 hand guard for when and if I wanted to run a VFG or other accessories.
I currently run a light weight configuration with the original CAR stock and carry handle - irons only.
 
Didn't think so....:)

I've put all my shots right where I wanted with a skin-searing hot Mini-14 barrel at CQB ranges, and those who have shot Mini's know what kind of groups a really hot Mini-14 shoots...

It probably makes more sense to focus on stuff that matters, then.:)
 
Does accuracy loss due to a hotter barrel matter AT ALL for a CQB carbine?

The point of a rail for close-in dynamic shooting isn't that it helps accuracy at that range. It is that the rifle stays cooler and heat is a killer of rifle parts.

An added plus with the longer rails is that they also help with "barrel branding" by keeping that nice, smoking hot barrel from leaving a good scorch mark on you or your gear.
 
Very informative thread. It's been over 20 years since I had an M-16 in my hands. So much has changed.

So kind of getting back to the spirit of the OP's post, it seems that most folks prefer flat top and BUIS with some type of optics.

My rifles are for defense and a little fun only. I shoot handguns more often, but I feel that it's a good idea to have a few long arms on hand.

For a larger caliber or longer range need, I've purchased an M1A Standard. I really like it. It's proven, basic, and fairly simple. I use Iron sights for the time being.

Now, like the OP, I need something that's more CQB oriented. I like the KISS principle so from what I've gathered in this thread I'm looking at a ( CA legal) 16" AR with either fixed or adjustable stock. It does seem flat top is the way to go leaving options open for later. Fixed front post with flip up rears? Possible rail for a light? Good Mags, quality and supply. Anything else I'm forgetting?

I'm leaning toward Stag or M&P at this time.
 
A sling, a sling is a holster for your rifle basically. Without one your are dedicated to having to use at least one hand at all times on your rifle.

-Jenrick
 
Thanks for all the feedback.

You have given me more to think about than I thought possible. I need to go down to my local pusher and see what the various setups feel like and will go from there.

Thanks again.
 
For the fixed carrying handle, it depends on how much you like them. You could always get one of the mounts that mount your optic in front of the carrying handle. I've found that heavy barrels don't balance particularly well(very front heavy). The quality and speciifations of the barrel is what is going to be the biggest factor of accuracy of the barrel itself. Just start it with a minimum of accessories and add them as you learn more about them.

To give my own perspective on Aimpoint and EOtech comparisons:

My firsthand experience with the Army's M68 Aimpoints is that they're not the most durable(seen one break firsthand dropping onto a floor from ~2 ft up) Internally their function of the elevation and windage screws(or whatever you want to call them) can also unreliable(unresponsive, or "sticks") too making sighting in very aggravating. They also have reticles that I have found to be excessively large for their purpose and they tend to "bleed"(not a crisp clear dot) for me. The exposed and too easily turned knob gets turned a lot on its own too(for instance getting in and out of cramped, armored HMMWVs) which mean at any given time I can look through it I've found it off when I left it on and left on when I turned it off earlier because of this.

Because I found I couldn't trust the Aimpoint nor make it work to my satisfaction I spent my own money on an EOtech. As for durability, my EOtech wears some serious scars from all the beating it takes. I find the controls easy to use and predictable. I just turn it on and I know just how long it will be on. If I need it on longer, I can just "refresh" it when it's convenient. It's wide FOV and crisp MOA dot has made it the quickest and easiest to use red-dot I've ever used. It's even made in America where the Aimpoint isn't. The only thing the Aimpoint has over the EOtech is battery life(even though the EOtech lasts pretty long on standard AAs) but the EOtech uses standard AAs which are very coomon, even around here. It also changes batteries quicker and easier than I've seen in any other device(lift a lever, dump the battery carrier and stick two fresh ones in and close the lever).
 
What if the CQB situation goes beyond closed quarters... effectively and consistantly hitting a target at 50-75 yards (if the target gets that far) could use a dissipator upper.

Not to mention the things look mean... With the xtra handguard length you could mount an Anti-ICBM battery on side. :p
 
which explains why thousands of internet users aren't seeing the problem and falsely reporting there is no problem...

If our sights are not failing then they we not "falsely" doing anything.

My Eotech has survived for years, including a couple of carbine classes of over 1000 rounds in a weekend. My SBR with the Eotech probably has close to 10,000 rounds. I mean, read what you wrote. Thousands of users are not seeing a problem, yet we're lying when we say we haven't seen the problem?

I don't suppose you were aware that the SOPMOD PMO "strongly recommends not using [eotech] until they can be replaced or repaired." ?
or that "The SOPMOD PMO has ordered a halt on any further fielding of this item until sufficient testing has been performed on sights with the incorporated part upgrade. " ?

I notice you didn't include the fact that it's only the model 553, the one that uses the Lithium batteries. Just as many people are using the 552 to take advantage of the lower cost AA batteries, at least in the civilian world. There is no problem with that model and this PCN does not apply.

And in case you have never lived in the real world, this kind of thing happens all the time when a subcontractor changes a part. The inherent design of the 553 is not at issue here, it is that a subcontractor provided a different battery contact and that contact has a design problem.

In the real world, not the high speed low drag world of the Internet, contractors face PCN (product change notice) issues like this all the time. They get fixed and people move on.

By the way USSOCOM did choose the 553 over other optics and will continue to issue them after the PCN is put in place. This is how it works in the real world. You won't find a government contractor that has never had a PCN issue of one kind or another.

And of course it's stuff like this that should make you not even consider any kind of flip up front sight. You want to be able to move to the backup immediately if there is an optic problem. Flip up rear fine, but leave the front post in place.
 
So what rate of twist should be choosen for a CQB. I see that most things are 1:9, but there is some 1:7 barrels available. Which to choose?
 
What can you afford to shoot? Some people say 1:7 gives you the broadest range by shooting 55 decently and thriving with the heavy stuff. But I don't know how much sense it makes to zero your rifle and practice with "cheap" 55 grain stuff and then load 77 grain for defense. For personal defense, 55 grain loads probably work as well as anything else.
 
1:7 shoots everything from 45gr to 77gr accurately (though if you are a top notch shooter and shooting from a stable position, 1:9 has a slight (less than 0.5" at 100yds) accuracy advantage with the lighter rounds.

1:9 is more common and shoots everything from 40gr to 69gr accurately. Some 1:9s will also shoot 75-77gr quite accurately; but my experience has been that:

1. You are right on the margin of accuracy and you may lose stability with a temperature drop or similar change in environment.

2. If you happen to be unlucky enough to get a 1:9 that does not shoot 75-77gr well, it will still be capable of doing 4-5" groups at 100yds which is practical for most defensive uses.
 
What if the CQB situation goes beyond closed quarters... effectively and consistantly hitting a target at 50-75 yards (if the target gets that far) could use a dissipator upper.

I play around with a carbine at 100 yards. Not a problem, even standing offhand with A2 sights. As Bartholomew Roberts said above, I'd be more worried about touching a hot barrel.

But the dissipator doesn't make it cooler, it just keeps your hands off it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top