FL-NC
Member
The "difference" is relative. 3" less barrel (a 7.5) not only results in a rifle that is generally less reliable, but a rifle that will generally have less rail space to both hold on to the front of the weapon as well as space to hang vital equipment like lights and such- a major consideration in a CQB situation. Not to mention the loss in muzzle velocity, as the barrel becomes shorter and shorter- you mostly pay for this as range increases. The purpose of the shorter barrel uppers issued for the M4 and similar weapons in the DOD is twofold- first, to have a more compact weapon for situations where a "lower profile" is desired, as well as for use with a suppressor, which keeps the overall length to a "minimum". A standard issue Knights QD suppressor is 6 1/2" long- add that to a 10.5" barrel, and suddenly the overall length of your weapon is about 16"- or 1.5" LONGER than a standard M4 barrel with only a FH on the front. My personal preference is a 11.5" barrel, I always felt it offered the best in terms of balance when running the weapon "loud" as well as a "workable" overall length when the suppressor is on. I agree that the AR makes a poor handgun. There is always the option of a pistol brace, and putting the $200 and paperwork to make it a SBR later.@FL-NC 3" can make a lot of different in a close quarters situation but your comment goes to the heart of my question. 10.5" barrel with along blast deflector (2"+) is getting into SBR territory for me. A SBR in that length makes more sense than leaving it as a handgun. But I don't want to deal with the paperwork and paying $200.00 fee for a SBR.
Essentially a AR-15 makes for a poor handgun.