pro2 said:
This is MY personal preference.
During CQB, I grip the mag well, not the handguard.
When resting the firearm (whether in the prone or supported), pressure point should be as close to the receiver as possible. That is how I train soldiers.
How is moving the fulcrum back on a long lever conducive to better control of the end of that lever (i.e. muzzle)?
There is no tangible benefit of mid-length over carbine.
There are several tangible benefits to the midlength over the carbine. They include:
1. Longer sight radius for iron sights
2. Smoother recoil impulse due to a delayed lock time from the longer gas system.
3. Less wear and tear due to a delayed lock time from the longer gas system.
4. More handguard real estate - this means I can use anything from 3-gun grip on the rifle to a mag well hold. It means more rail space to put equipment where I can best use it. Finally it means that I will have to work a little harder to brand myself with a hot barrel during training.
But, the carbine does hold advantages over mid-length, because, well, it is shorter.
At maximum, the length difference between an NFA length M4 and a midlength with an A2 muzzle device is about 1.5" - not exactly earth-shattering.
My "quantifiable" data is experience over three combat deployments.
That isn't quantifiable data. For all I know, you carried rifle for three deployments and fired a grand total of 120 rounds during training. Or maybe you fired 4,000 rounds on a known distance range with wind flags in 60 round intervals with no real stress on the rifle.
Saying you have three combat deployments doesn't help to establish your expertise on the differences between a midlength and a carbine (especially since the military doesn't use the midlength) or your general knowledge of firearms. There are lots of combat vets out there who are awesome fighters but who have at best, a basic knowledge of firearms.
Shooting and weapons design/maintenance are not the same thing as combat. They are occasionally related; but being an expert shot doesn't make you an expert in combat and three combat deployments doesn't mean you know firearms or shooting well.
I never seen an M4's bolt assembly or receiver fail either.
Here is a
2006 NDIA Presentation from the USSOCOM SOPMOD Program Manager at NSWC Crane. On Page 44, he notes that om harsh firing schedules, M4s will show initial cracking of the bolt at around 3,000-6,000 rounds. On milder schedules, it will show at 6,000-10,000 rounds.
By comparison,
Pat Rogers infamous Filthy 14 midlength went 16,400 rounds before showing cracks on the bolt.
Not exactly undisputable data; but it does show two things:
1. Midlengths do appear to last longer given equal quality parts
2. Bolt failure in the AR15 does happen, even though you may not be aware of it personally.
This isn't rocket sciene - the M16 was designed with a 20" barrel and a rifle length gas system. All of the variations of the M16 use original parts designed around these times and pressures; but use them in variants where times and pressures are much different than the original 20" rifle. The result is usually some tiny degree of reduction in reliability and a shorter lifespan for the weapon.
If the rifle is properly maintained, the argument is tangible null.
Maybe if someone else is doing the maintaining (and doing it properly); but around here, I have to pay for my maintenance. So if I can get a system that lasts 1,000 rounds more for $10 price difference, that is a good trade - assuming of course that you shoot often enough you'll ever get to appreciate that difference. If you don't then maybe it does offer less benefit.
