purpose behind civilian "carbine"

[SharpsDressedMan]

I'm still not sure that the heavier barrel, and generally heavier weapon overall that the M16A2 became after the m16A1 was a better trend. The A1 had a medium 20" barrel, that gave full sight radius and optimum velocity (compared to the 16" CAR or even shorter barrels (M4). It kept the gun light, and was much nicer to "hump". No one considers or mentions the A1 much anymore, as the faster twist of the A2 and A4 became a necessary thing for the heavier bullets. The CAR and M4 do corner better, but at the expence of less energy and range, and the user experiences more muzzle blast. I'd like a NEW rifle with the dimmensions and weight of the M16A1, but a 1-8 twist, and whatever sighting system (flattop with folding full adj rear, with optic options?) tuns out to be the best. I also would not mind a short moderator or suppressor being designed for it, as standard equipment....something about 3-4 inches long, that would drop the dB's by 20.

 

[kwelz]

I am curious as to why you think 16 inch barrels are less accurate. They have lower Velocity Yes, but they are no less accurate.

 

[R.W.Dale]

My take on this is if we could just go out and buy an 14.5" bbl'd carbine then I'd be all for the carbine.

But being legally constrained to 16"+ I'll just as soon choose the 20" rifle

 

[Welding Rod]

With iron sights I would expect a shorter barrel to result in less accuracy... not for mechanical reasons but due to the shorter sight radius.

That said I have a scoped 16" AR that does sub 3/4 MOA (and has done sub 1/2 MOA) for 5 with match ammo.

 

[bomb dropper]

Anyone can own a 14.5 barrel ar just pin a phantom on it.

 

[ArmedBear]

A 20" A2 HBAR for use at the range makes a fine target rifle, while a 16" mid-length with a light profile barrel and a light is a fine bedside gun.

I agree.

What people forget is that an AR is a modular gun. A 20" HBAR is a different weapon from a 16" carbine, and from a 24" Varmint rifle. They can all share the same receiver, and they're all "ARs". They're not the same weapons.

When I say the 20" is a better RIFLE, that's what I mean.

Too many people seem to be unable to read.

 

[[Pb]]

I carry my AR15 long distances for hunting and I am glad it is a nice light carbine. It also handles a whole lot better in a vehicle or indoors/while hunting in thick brush.

 

[benEzra]

I could understand if you are kicking down doors in a urban combat situation, but in a civilian situation of home protection or even home offense I would much rather have a high capacity assault shotgun of some sort. So with all that rubbish being said what is the point in a civilian carbine when a full sized rifle will give a much better outcome?

Shotguns are remarkably lethal and effective weapons at close range, but as with any weapon, they require regular handling and practice/training to maintain proficiency, and not everyone enjoys shooting shotguns.

The nice thing about a 16" carbine for the civilian is that you have one long gun that can cover multiple roles. A 16" .223/5.56x45 with suitable civilian JHP's is both an excellent home-defense tool AND a fun range gun, at CQB distances to 500 yards and everything in between. A 16" carbine with a collapsible stock is a little more convenient to store and transport as well.

A 20" rifle with an A2 stock may be an even better range gun, but gets a little unwieldy indoors or in other close quarters.

 

[RP88]

I'm sure that the USMC's keeping with the M16 had something to do with people trying to shoot the standard M4

Actually, I believe it was because the marines usually get hand-me-downs, and thus there were not enough funds or hand-me-down M4s to go around.

 

[Al Thompson]

USMC has their own budget now - the hand-me down thing is from the past.

 

[ArmedBear]

Yeah, hand-me-down guns would be A2s. They're in the hands of Harbor Patrols, ROTC, Guard units, and boot camps, not front-line USMC units.

The Marines bought M16A4s, by choice.

The type of fighting in which the Marine Corps has been engaged over the past few years might have changed which weapon is best, but when the Marine Corps last had a choice about a large-scale order, they chose the rifle version.

 

[Harvey]

Now to address the issue of shotgun vs AR in a home protection situation that has come up.

The other day at the range I chummed with a gent trying out his AR15 CAR, set up with one the new 12 ga. uppers. The thing definitely settled the shotgun vs. the AR question, once and for all.

What a beast of a weapon.

 

[Candiru]

Just a nitpick, but they both have 100% chance of penetrating interior walls, no more, no less.

Not exactly.

 

[Shadow Man]

Just gotta point out: a full-sized M16A4 with 20" barrel is 39.5". A Remington 870 with an 18" barrel (a typical home defense shotgun, I believe) is 37.25". Consider that since most of us do not like the BATFE knocking on our doors, we keep our shotgun barrels a little longer than 18". So really, a full sized M16 is no less maneuverable inside a home than your typical HD shotgun.

Personally, having used both an M16A4 and M4A1, I want to squeeze as much velocity out of that round as possible, so I will take the M16A4. Of course, paper targets do not care at what velocity the bullet is moving, so for range trips and 3-gun matches, whatever floats your boat. Now, I saw some complaints that a 20" barreled rifle was heavier than the 16" carbine, and to that all I can say is; train more. It is adding mere ounces to your load, and while ounces do add up, one place I do not mind them adding up is on my weapon, because any ounce of weight gained to make my weapon more useful should, in theory, save me from loosing an ounce of blood. YMMV, JMTC, and all that jazz.

 

[Erik M]

I have no idea why a civilian would need to hit a target at or beyond 500 yards consistenly in a life threatning situation. I prefer the collapseable stock on my carbine. i would never run a full a2 stock on it just for looks alone.

(note to self, post 666 was on the subject of evil black rifles.)

 

[Grey Morel]

It might be a little lighter and compact, but then most people throw enough junk on it to make it as heavy and unweildy as it was before... beats me.

that's funny, my carbine weighs a scant 6 lbs.

 

[Shadow Man]

True enough, a civilian would probably never have reason to shoot at a target at or beyond 500yds in a life threatening situation; however, the same velocity that propels that 5.56 bullet out to 500yds will increase the performance of the round at closer ranges.

 

[Avenger29]

Now to address the issue of shotgun vs AR in a home protection situation that has come up. If you don't hit your target with your first 10 rounds I don't see the next 20 being all that much help anyways. Now I really don't understand how many people would be using a civilian firearm in a situation more than 25 feet. I generally don't tote my AR with me on a day to day basis, and I don't think it would be a smart thing to do chasing a home invader down the street in the middle of the night wearing nothing but my boxers putting rounds down range.

Like I said I'm not saying there is no need for a carbine, and I should have left out the iron sights bit. I don't work well with optics but they are nice, I'm just too retarded to use them to the fullest. I always end up shooting high to the left for the first bit because I always get a lousy sight picture, but that is the users fault not the equipment. I just don't see why a civilian situation would ever call for one. If a situation came up where I NEED a AR I want as much range as I can get.

1) My home defense situation may not be the same as yours. I have a very valid need for range, living in a very rural area, where I may have to do tasks such as remove belligerent trespassers, such as hunters, from my property. The AR-15 fills that requirement very nicely, giving me the capability of standoff range, accuracy, and if necessary, rate of fire.

2) Everybody in my house can use an AR-15. The same cannot be said of the shotgun. Very low recoil, adjustable stock, easy and quick reloading, a quality red dot sight that simplifies sighting. In short, ease of use.

The AR carbine gives me a very useful tool, suitable for close in and intermediate range threats. The longest distance on my property is about 700 yards. The AR-15 lets me cover 500 of those yards, and it is very doubtful that I would need that much. Most other open areas are two hundred yards or less.

 

[Rshooter]

Marine Retired here and I prefer the longer barrels. I cannot agree more though that I also really liked the weight of the A1. My next build is an A4 with a medium to light barrel.

 

[Erik M]

True enough, a civilian would probably never have reason to shoot at a target at or beyond 500yds in a life threatening situation; however, the same velocity that propels that 5.56 bullet out to 500yds will increase the performance of the round at closer ranges.

My next build will either have at the very least 20" heavy or bull barrel flat top upper. I like pushing round out to 300 yards consistently

 

[Mags]

I set my civilian carbine up just like my issued carbine (except I used Magpul MOE furniture) so I use my personal carbine for self defense and training. I would love to have a 20 inch A2 one day for target shooting.

 

[MetalHead]

My choices have mostly followed the A1 pattern, cept one lower does have the CTR stock, looks funny but suits me fine. Infact I like the 20 inchers so much the 7.62x39 upper I bought is that length too. The one 16 inch barrel has beem turned down to almost A1 profile, just 25 thousandths larger diameter on a A2 reciever, I don's see myself buying another carbine length barrel unless its a real bargin, wish I had held out for a mid-length gas system though.

 

[Sunray]

"...what is the point in a civilian carbine..." Marketing. Firearms seen on TV and in movies sell extremely well. Has nothing to do with a 'need'. Has to do with a 'want'.

 

[browningguy]

I don't have a preference on the AR between 16 and 20" except that I definately want a 20" for long range shooting.

They should practice shooting, not get a Hi-Point.

That's another silly internet statement. I can make fairly rapid first shot hits on a man size target anywhere between 50 and 100 yards with my Sub 2000 in 9mm or my HK USC in .45. I can't do that everytime (heck not even most of the time) with a pistol.

 

[David E]

That's another silly internet statement. I can make fairly rapid first shot hits on a man size target anywhere between 50 and 100 yards with my Sub 2000 in 9mm or my HK USC in .45. I can't do that everytime (heck not even most of the time) with a pistol.

Then I'm confused. You can't make the hits with a handgun, therefore, you don't need to practice more?

When you carry your AR, do you back it up with the Sub Rifle 2000 or HK USC .45 slung across your shoulder instead of a handgun?