M4 Configuration VS. "Modern full railed" AR's
- Thread starter C&RTactical
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Ask Ford how well those transmissions are working for them
It's Ford. What did you expect?
-Z/28-
I wanna go fast
And that will bite them in the ass very hard when QC slips to increase production.
rdc
Ultimate Member
True enough.
- Jul 29, 2014
- 50,063
Likewise
C&RTactical
Active Member
- Jul 24, 2013
- 407
Hm this discussion has me definitely appreciating the M4 configuration more. So far people agree that it is vastly more durable and reliable no question because of battle testing and milspec. Whereas the second "Modern, Full Railed" AR is just a civilian development with better handling for competition and range use. Not as durable, but still very reliable and good for duty use as long as not abusive. So far only one person really vouched that with the better handling and attachment options it is an improvement overall. Though like someone here said the "Modern, Full Railed" AR will be the new norm. I will caveat that statement with if people really desire that, experienced shooter, or know what they want will go with the "Modern, Full Railed" configuration. Namely because that AR config look like they have too much going on and tend to be more expensive. Whereas the M4 config is proven, works, lest costly, and ready to go out of the box. Good for the newbie and professional alike.
smokey
2A TEACHER
- Jan 31, 2008
- 31,534
What exactly is less reliable on an AR with a rail? The functional components are the upper, lower, buffer tube, gas block/tube. None of those really change with the exception of a mid-length gas system instead of a carbine gas system for less recoil and wear on parts with the "newer" rifle. Most of these newer recce-type rifles are at least up to "milspec" and many offer production advantages over the universal military minimum standard.
The stock/rail/grip are largely costmetic/ergonomic changes that have nothing to do with reliability. The only "reliability" issue is if you're mounting a back up iron on the rail and bash the rail hard enough to bend it. These rifles are meant to be used with an optic such as a red dot or 1-4/1-6/1-8 scope....which is mounted to the upper.
These optics are incredibly durable and reliable these days. There's also alternative back-up sighting options such as canted irons mounted to the upper or canted reflex sights that aren't subject to losing zero if the handguard flexes/bends.
Theoretically, you can swing the rifle like a baseball bat and completely crush the handguard flat against the barrel, but it won't effect reliability(provided you don't f-up the gas tube...which would be hard to do since the top of most handguards is the strongest part due to the rail up there).
Saying these are less reliable is not true.
5.56blaster
Ultimate Member
I carried the M4 for years. OIE, OEF, Africa. It works. Never an issue. Used an ACOG optic. My weapon looked just like your picture.
Pretty much what Smokey said. Unless you envision using your handguard as a prybar or go for the super dooper lightweight balsa wood forends (hyperbole) or the cheap Chi-com forends you're not gonna face any issues.
For most end users. The 2nd AR will suit their needs better and their situations better.
Mil-Spec is a STANDARD, not a Holy Grail. It provides a reliable, basic carbine. There is better than mil spec, less than mil spec and equal to mil spec. For example, barrels, mil spec barrels are chrome lined 1 in 7 twist with a 5.56 NATO chamber. This is to provide reliability for full auto fire and to stabilize tracer rounds. A nitrided, 1 in 8 twist chamber will suit most citizens needs quite well as far as stabilizing rounds and protecting against corrosion. Myself, I would skip the chrome lining and go for the nitrided pretty much every day of the week unless someone said "here's a Class III lower and over there is the Talibananas, or the Viet Cong. We'll pick you up in a few months".
For most end users. The 2nd AR will suit their needs better and their situations better.
Mil-Spec is a STANDARD, not a Holy Grail. It provides a reliable, basic carbine. There is better than mil spec, less than mil spec and equal to mil spec. For example, barrels, mil spec barrels are chrome lined 1 in 7 twist with a 5.56 NATO chamber. This is to provide reliability for full auto fire and to stabilize tracer rounds. A nitrided, 1 in 8 twist chamber will suit most citizens needs quite well as far as stabilizing rounds and protecting against corrosion. Myself, I would skip the chrome lining and go for the nitrided pretty much every day of the week unless someone said "here's a Class III lower and over there is the Talibananas, or the Viet Cong. We'll pick you up in a few months".
smokey
2A TEACHER
- Jan 31, 2008
- 31,534
and if you do envision using your rifle as a baseball bat against a big wooden column....bending the shite out of the lightweight handguard in the process... it'll still work just fine with that bent to crap handguard.
clandestine
AR-15 Savant
The busted and bent rails were dropped, not abused intentionally. I didnt say is would render the gun so it cant fire. I said it will change zero if its the only sighting system.
I have seen enough of it to consider it a possibility that an accident will render rail mounted front sights useless unless you can re-zero.
I have seen enough of it to consider it a possibility that an accident will render rail mounted front sights useless unless you can re-zero.
Last edited:
Vile Shadow
...
- Feb 28, 2013
- 28,953
Here's to hopin' that statement ain't made right here on American soil someday.
I worry about that, so gimme what I know's been battle proven.
Indiana Jones
Wolverine
dist1646
Ultimate Member
- Dec 20, 2013
- 12,340
Attachments
jimbobborg
Oddball caliber fan
Sorry, doesn't qualify. Not a carry handle upper receiver if the carry handle is screwed on.
- Dec 20, 2013
- 12,340
Weren't we talking (in part) about an....
Attachments
alucard0822
For great Justice
Long handguards are not just for bashing into trees and mounting bent up iron sights, they allow you to put your support hand further out and better control the muzzle to shoot faster, also more sling support and retention options and grip options. Poster earlier about training and purpose making a big difference, and it does, without that consideration declaring one better than the other doesn't mean anything. There is no question a basic uniform rifle to go with basic uniform training has it's merits, but in capable hands the 2nd rifle will put shots on target faster than the 1st. Put that support hand up and out, work the uncluttered optic, and learn to use a long rail and optic to your advantage. Sure your rail can get bent, and throw off a rail mounted front sight, doesn't matter much though if you have good armorer support, or can deal with the possibility of a bent sight after your optic goes down, or a bent/missing/broken rear sight on either rifle.
clandestine
AR-15 Savant
I guess my point was unclear. You can have a fixed FSB, AND a long rail.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
-
Tennessee legislature passes bill to arm teachers; leftist lose their minds (4 Viewers)- Latest: Blaster229
-
-
