20" vs 16" AR
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
How about 18" on a mid length gas system?
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
I think you're on the right track, it certainly doesn't seem like a bad one. A few of my thoughts:74novaman wrote:So....I've been spending too much time reading on the internet about all the different ways I can build an AR.![]()
I still like the idea of both the 20" classic A2 style, and also wouldn't mind doing an M4gery. Both types will probably eventually wind up in my safe.
BUT....I've stumbled across another idea I like.![]()
Palmetto State has a 20" upper with a 1:7 twist and a 12" Midwest Industries free float rail for a darn good price.
...
A 20" AR with a decent scope will be MORE than capable of engaging up to 600 yards effectively (which is the most I can honestly see myself ever needing, be it on a hunt or in a mad max, end of the world scenario.) yet still capable of being used at closer ranges.
I used the brownells "AR builder" just to see what it might look like (so I was forced using their products...thus, this is NOT exactly how my rifle will end up looking...but I still like the look).
<purty image removed>
So, after all that rambling...any thoughts?
Does this sound like a capable, fun AR build, or should I just stick with the standard A2 rifle or M4 carbine build for a first AR?
1) Collapsible stock: Always. Just no reason not to

2) 1:7 twist - good for heavies (62+). But it should work fine with anything you stuff in it.
3) Gas length: I _never_ recommend a carbine length system unless you're a full-auto commando with a 16" barrel. There's some fun, nerdy charts to read here about it (http://www.ar15barrels.com/prod/operation.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).
4) I think the Palmetto State Armory upper is a solid idea.
I don't fear guns; I fear voters and politicians that fear guns.
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
I've read about that...and people seem to like it.gigag04 wrote:How about 18" on a mid length gas system?
In your mind, what's the advantage of going 18", midlength gas over a 20", rifle gas system?
Why I was thinking 20 was it seems to be the longest option that people still consider carryable and not just a bench rest plinker. I figured if I'd like it to be able to reach out, any extra bit of velocity can't hurt...
TANSTAAFL
- The Annoyed Man
- Senior Member
- Posts: 26885
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
- Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
- Contact:
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
Let me preface this by saying that we have two ARs with 24" barrels in the safe. One has a seriously bull barrel. the other has a heavy fluted barrel. The one with the bull-barrel is by FAR the heaviest rifle in the safe, topping out at almost 18 lbs with the scope mounted. The other one is about 11-12 lbs all up. Both are really heavy. Even a 20" heavy profile is going to add a significant amount to the weight of an AR. At some point, the added weight cancels out the charms of an AR15. If you're going to have a 12 lb rifle for walking around with, why not make it a .308? See what I mean? I'm not advocating that you buy a .308. I'm just saying that one of the charms of an AR15 is its relatively light weight and handiness, combined with good accuracy. The fact is that neither of those two heavy long-barreled ARs of ours get shot very much.
The main advantage of a longer barrel—at least with front sight in the normal position—is bullet velocity. But if you're talking about shooting inside of 300 yards, I'm not convinced that the extra velocity is that necessary. Also, consider that between two barrels which are equal in all respects except length, the shorter barrel will be the stiffer one, and stiffness means less barrel deflection which contributes to accuracy....probably more so than sight radius does in a long gun.
With that in mind, I would think that a heavy profile (not bull-barrel) 16" barrel of high quality with the right twist rate would shoot just as well as the longer barrel, without sacrificing the handiness of an AR15. I know that you've got the "short and handy" thing covered with your AKs, but if you can have both "short and hand" and great accuracy, why not do that? That's just my 2¢.
The main advantage of a longer barrel—at least with front sight in the normal position—is bullet velocity. But if you're talking about shooting inside of 300 yards, I'm not convinced that the extra velocity is that necessary. Also, consider that between two barrels which are equal in all respects except length, the shorter barrel will be the stiffer one, and stiffness means less barrel deflection which contributes to accuracy....probably more so than sight radius does in a long gun.
With that in mind, I would think that a heavy profile (not bull-barrel) 16" barrel of high quality with the right twist rate would shoot just as well as the longer barrel, without sacrificing the handiness of an AR15. I know that you've got the "short and handy" thing covered with your AKs, but if you can have both "short and hand" and great accuracy, why not do that? That's just my 2¢.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
What happened to the Dissapator idea? That is my next build for sure. I think the 20" option is a good one, but the long barrel is becoming less and less popular b/c the 16" barrel gets the job done with plenty of accuracy and velocity without an extra 4" on the end.
"I am a Free Man, regardless of what set of 'rules' surround me. When I find them tolerable, I tolerate them. When I find them obnoxious, I ignore them. I remain free, because I know and understand that I alone bear full responsibility for everything I do, or chose not to do."
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
RECIT wrote:What happened to the Dissapator idea? That is my next build for sure..
It's still one of the ideas I'm bouncing around...but I kind of want something different from my AKs.
With an iron sighted dissy or M4 I feel like I'm getting the exact same capabilities I already have, while a DMRish build opens up what I can do with a rifle.
TAM, I get what you're saying about a heavy AR. I might go poke around a local gun store and see if I can handle both a 16" gun and a heavier 20" to see if it's enough of a difference to help me decide which way to go.
TANSTAAFL
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
One more quick thought: I'm sure this won't be my last AR, just my first. So that's another reason I'm leaning towards something different.
I'm sure at some point I'll have a light handy m4 as well even if I do build a 20" gun now, or the other wAy around
I'm sure at some point I'll have a light handy m4 as well even if I do build a 20" gun now, or the other wAy around
TANSTAAFL
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
I was thinking out loud really - I like this setup. You can get 18" w a rifle length too, but running optics, I don't need the sight radius, and prefer the lower weight.74novaman wrote:I've read about that...and people seem to like it.gigag04 wrote:How about 18" on a mid length gas system?
In your mind, what's the advantage of going 18", midlength gas over a 20", rifle gas system?
Why I was thinking 20 was it seems to be the longest option that people still consider carryable and not just a bench rest plinker. I figured if I'd like it to be able to reach out, any extra bit of velocity can't hurt...
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. - Thomas Edison
- The Annoyed Man
- Senior Member
- Posts: 26885
- Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
- Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
- Contact:
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
Of course, one of the beauties of a AR is that you can set a rifle up one way, and simply buy another upper/barrel assembly for a different purpose. This is my 24" heavy-barreled rifle on the center right, and my son's 24" bull-barreled rifle on the center left:74novaman wrote:One more quick thought: I'm sure this won't be my last AR, just my first. So that's another reason I'm leaning towards something different.
I'm sure at some point I'll have a light handy m4 as well even if I do build a 20" gun now, or the other wAy around

On either side are a couple of early 16" carbine builds we did—both of which have been considerably upgraded since that picture was taken and no longer look like they do in the picture. (BTW, the carbine on the left has a 16" bull-barrel, compared to the M4 profile of the carbine on the right.) However, the size difference in the picture does serve to illustrate how much more cumbersome a long barreled AR can be.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
Rule of thumb in the 10-26" length range is that each inch contributes about 50fps more. Naturally, a lot depends on the cartridge as well, but all things being equal...The Annoyed Man wrote:The main advantage of a longer barrel—at least with front sight in the normal position—is bullet velocity. But if you're talking about shooting inside of 300 yards, I'm not convinced that the extra velocity is that necessary.
I don't fear guns; I fear voters and politicians that fear guns.
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
Ya know, I guess I'll bring up the .308 notion again. It kinda seems that the OP, 74novaman, wants two new rifles in one, and that might not be realistically possible.The Annoyed Man wrote:If you're going to have a 12 lb rifle for walking around with, why not make it a .308? See what I mean? I'm not advocating that you buy a .308. I'm just saying that one of the charms of an AR15 is its relatively light weight and handiness, combined with good accuracy. The fact is that neither of those two heavy long-barreled ARs of ours get shot very much.
Accuracy at distance was mentioned, even out to 600 yards; while the .223 can shoot nice and flat and offer good accuracy at extended distances, IMHO small varmints or punching holes in paper is pretty much all it can be relegated to at distance.
The barrel length does make a difference in velocity achieved, and velocity adds to the potentially effective range. But the .223 is a stopper when it can strike the target near or at 2,700 fps. Its effectiveness is primarily based on the round fragmenting as it tumbles on impact. It isn't the tumble itself that does it; that's common to any FMJ spitzer-shaped projectile: as soon as it encounters a dense but soft medium and the point-forward flight of the bullet is disturbed, it will yaw and try to flip around 180 degrees and, if uninterrupted, continue the remainder of its flight base-first. It will, of course, change trajectory if it encounters a hard object like bone after entry. Unless a .223 round's jacket separates from its core as it does its tumble, it just ends up being a light, .22-caliber round that--other than the 180-degree flip which typically happens quickly at a shallow depth--makes the same size hole penetrating as it did when entering.
An older 55-grain round (M193) out of a 20-inch barrel will stay at around 2,700 fps out to around 200 yards. By contrast, the newer 62-grain M855 (SS109) round through a military M4 14.5" barrel will drop under 2,700 fps in about 20 to 25 yards. That's a big reason so many failure-to-stop reports have come back from Afghanistan and Iraq, even as far back as Paul Howe's wise observations about the Battle of Mogadishu. That, and due to its size, the .223 is notoriously poor at penetrating any kind of cover. Those are the reasons that military snipers use heavier calibers to reach out and touch the bad guys; if the lighter, smaller, and easier to transport .223 would do the trick reliably, that's what would be in play.
I guess, to me, it comes down to the real purpose for the rifle. At 350 yards, a prairie dog is no match for a .223 projectile. But its maximum effective range for larger game or defensive purposes is going to be around 200 yards; with a heavier bullet and shorter barrel, less. But 5.56 NATO is a common round worldwide, is relatively inexpensive and easy to find, and makes for a great urban or patrol-type rifle. Definitely has its place, and I think everyone should own at least one.

If shooting at paper at 400 yards is desired, go for it. However, if you want hunting or defensive purposed use out beyond 200 yards, I'd vote for a heftier caliber. There a lot to choose from above .223 while still keeping the Stoner or a Stoner-like gas piston system on an AR-15 or AR-10 platform. All the same basic manual-at-arms, which is a good thing. Ya got everything from 6.5 Grendel to .308 to .338 Federal to .458 SOCOM to .50 Beowulf, and a bunch of others in between. Some of the ammo options are, shall we kindly say, pricey.
But the one that's also a standard NATO round is the .308, 7.62x51mm. Decent but inexpensive milsurp ammo can be had for it; it offers a utilitarian hunting/defensive round for use out past 200 yards; and ammo is readily available. Not a good choice for basic home or urban-distance defense, though. Unlike the .223, the .308 can and will penetrate.
The downside is that while uppers can be interchangeable for the specific platforms, the AR-15 and AR-10 platforms use a different lower and you can't really move uppers between the breeds.
Building these things is as addictive as owning 1911s. I very much recommend planning out an annual schedule for possible builds to help keep your budget, yourself, and your wife sane.

If you're already happy enough with your AKs for urban and mid-distance stuff, and you don't live on a ranch or farm where varmint hunting is of primary concern, you may want to consider starting with an AR-10-type platform in .308. Just as accurate for target shooting, and it provides effective distance capabilities that the AK and AR-15 in .223 simply can't.
Conversely, it's going to more expensive to shoot. If you really just want a Stoner platform for paper punching, another big advantage of the AR-15 in .223 is that you can then look at a conversion kit for shooting .22 LR. Plink for pennies instead of dollars. And as TAM said, weight might matter. If you're considering taking a carbine training course, you definitely do want a lightweight rifle. Several years ago I took a class where one of the guys had a 24" bull-barrel AR-15 similar to TAM's; after the first 10-hour day of two-hour shifts standing, walking, and running with that strapped over his neck, he was not a happy camper.
Maybe an AR-15 now with your choice of barrel lengths, a .22 LR conversion kit for it next, and an AR-10 in .308 a little later in the year? That'd cover your bases. At least until you decide that you absolutely positively need to have that 6.5 Grendel upper.
BTW, I'm not pontificatin' in your specific direction; you already have in mind what you want. But just in case new members are starting their own research...
Join the NRA or upgrade your membership today. Support the Texas Firearms Coalition and subscribe to the Podcast.
I’ve contacted my State Rep, Gary Elkins, about co-sponsoring HB560. Have you contacted your Rep?
NRA Benefactor Life Member
I’ve contacted my State Rep, Gary Elkins, about co-sponsoring HB560. Have you contacted your Rep?
NRA Benefactor Life Member
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
Skiprr, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Because I already have the lower, .308 is out for this build. I am now reading up on 6.5 Grendel though....and 6.8spc as well
SO many different options. I think I'm paralysed by the choices.
SO many different options. I think I'm paralysed by the choices.
TANSTAAFL
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
I have a beautiful Grendel upper. And ammo74novaman wrote:Skiprr, thanks for the thoughtful reply. Because I already have the lower, .308 is out for this build. I am now reading up on 6.5 Grendel though....and 6.8spc as well
SO many different options. I think I'm paralysed by the choices.

I don't fear guns; I fear voters and politicians that fear guns.
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
I'd love to take you up on that.
I won't even consider it a hijack if you want to post a pic and brag on it a bit
I won't even consider it a hijack if you want to post a pic and brag on it a bit

TANSTAAFL
Re: 20" vs 16" AR
Sorry I'm late on following up...tax time :(74novaman wrote:I'd love to take you up on that.
I won't even consider it a hijack if you want to post a pic and brag on it a bit
Here she is, built by some passionate guys up at Loki Weapon Systems in Oklahoma (http://www.lokiweaponsystems.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). 18" Satern cut rifled barrel, Black Weapons Armory muzzle brake, adjustable gas block, EXO coated carrier group, carbon handguard. I have a 1-4x GRSC scope mounted with a Burris PEPR mount until I can get a nicer scope (waiting on a 2.5-10x Viper). This one _should_ be able to nail things at 800yds, but probably not in my hands. We shall see.
One day I hope to be able to build some nice uppers like this myself (maybe starting this year), but the guys at Loki are VERY passionate about their work, and it shows in this one.

Now here's the irony: I haven't shot the darned thing yet! Alexander Arms has backordered my mags (said the last batch was out of spec

I don't fear guns; I fear voters and politicians that fear guns.