practical advantages of the mid-lenth upper vrs. carbine upper?

[Fremmer]

Lol yes x2

 

[Ramone]

On one occasion, about a year ago, myself and a friend swapped an 16" Carbine and a 16" mid-length on the same lower, just to see if we could feel a difference.

Doing it like that, we both agreed that we *could* feel a difference, that the Middy was smoother/softer on recoil. However, we also agreed that short of switching one from the other as we did, that the difference wasn't something you'd really notice.

 

[BoilerUP]

I just built an 18" rifle gas AR; its recoil impulse is noticeably softer than my 16" A1 carbine.

5.56 doesn't have much recoil, this is true...but how its recoil is presented (push vs. shove) can play a role in the precision of follow-up shots.

 

[Girodin]

I am also a little bemused by guys touting "lighter recoil" from the middys. Seriously? It's a .223. Go shoot an '03 Springfield, and then tell me about recoil.

This statement seems to stem from not understanding what people are really talking about or concerned about when they discuss recoil of a 5.56 rifle. Its not about recoil in the sense of "ouch my shoulder." Rather it is recoil and muzzle rise affecting split times and accuracy of follow ups. The "lighter recoil" people are touting is because of its affect on the speed and accuracy of follow up shots. Maybe that is not something that is important to your uses but you ought not be so dismissive of those who it is important for. Are you failure with the BSA drill (it also has other names)? Basically you have a target, say an IPSC target and you draw an 8" circle on it. You give your self a certain amount of time to fire a given number of rounds, say 5 rounds in two seconds. You try to keep all the rounds in that 8 inch circle. You start at five yards and mover back in increments from there until you reach failure points (which you then diagnose and work through). The relative recoil of two different 5.56 rifles will affect your performance in this drill. If I shoot a gun with a good brake I tend to be able to do better. I can put more rounds in that circle in a given time from a given distance. In sum, even though neither gun is anywhere remotely close to painful to shoot or anything like that, if I can reduce the recoil and muzzle rise of the gun I am faster. When I use my 22LR upper I can be faster still. Why not use what makes me most effective?

Do you have a shot timer? Go run the drill. If possible then run it with a similar but softer/flatter shooting rifle.

Longer sight radius I get, but if you're shooting a middy with iron sights and need that kind of precision that sight radius matters, shouldn't you have got a real rifle? Or a dissapator?

Not if the way in which I often or even predominately use his or her gun is better served by having a shorter barrel and/or lighter gun. One cannot know when they might also need to take a longer more precise shot. Someone might be going into a house with their rifle and then come out into the street and need to take longer shots (this is more of an LEO/MIL concern).

Moreover the statement seems to miss a basic point? Why not gain the advantage of longer sight radius whenever possible. It is not a bad thing to have a more rather than less versatile rifle. Is there a real advantage to having the shorter sight radius? If not then why not lengthen it. There are reasons to not have a rifle length gun/gas system. There are reasons one might not want a dissapator. Is there any real reason to prefer the shorter sight radius of a carbine with a sight at the gas block.

As has been noted there are both handguard and sight options to deal with both sight radius and handguard length issues. I own a carbine with a rifle length rail that has more handguard and longer sight radius than one of the middies I own. What is cheaper to set up really depends on what you are buying, when you are buying it are where you are buying it from.

To address the OP, I think there are some advantages. However, I think that a very large number of shooters will never notice them or even be able to make use of them. In buying a gun look at how you want to use it and look for a set up that will work best for YOU not for someone else and their uses.

 

[holdencm9]

Giroden, good response.

Like I said before, everything is a trade off.

Shorter barrel = more maneuverable, lighter, but shorter sight radius, louder bang, and less muzzle velocity.

You can help fix the sight radius issue by getting a mid-length handguard, but then you are cutting into some of the "benefits" of the lighter and more maneuverable carbine. You could balance that out by getting a pencil profile barrel, but then that will heat up a lot faster. It's just like the DI vs piston. Fix one thing (sorta) but create another problem. Last I checked, there is no perfect gun, just the gun that is the best balance of what you find important.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Good post Girodin.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Yeah, and for all those reasons, the military uses mid-length?? NOT! No discernible difference, other than having something to post about on forums like this!

Wouldn't be the first time Uncle Sam has made an unwise decision. Won't be the last.

 

[meanmrmustard]

It is rare to find out of spec gas ports on Colt rifles. This can't be said for many of the "middle tier" manufacturers. It is what it is, deal with it.

Numbers to back this claim?

 

[Quentin]

Where are you finding midlength uppers to be more expensive than carbine length uppers? I've bought four midlength uppers over the last four years and normally the price is the same or close to it. And that's four different brands, ArmaLite, BCM, Daniel Defense and PSA - same price.

The middys I see always seem to be more expensive, but they also usually have rails too...

Configured the same, the price of carbine gas and midlength gas uppers by the same maker usually is the same.