Advice on the barrel length of my next AR build

seatux

seatux

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
22   0   0
Location
Upstream From Jeremiah Johnson
Debating 14.5" or 16" length.
Pros and cons......of each length?
Looking at a Stag 16" barrel or a 14.5" Dlask barrel.

All advice, suggestions welcome.:)

I already have a Stag 20", but would like something for three gun matches.
 
A 14.5 is nice due to the fact that they can't be imported anymore, but lots has been written on the versatility of a 16" mid-length.

I have a 14.5 and a 20 now so my next will be a 16 mid.

The 16 mid is supposed to provide you with almost the same amount of accuracy as the 20 and no headaches of an improperly tuned shorter length.

I don't have the exact numbers that were posted by Kevin B. and others on hand right now which is why this is a bit vague.
 
Last edited:
recce said:
A 14.5 is nice due to the fact that they can't be imported anymore, but lots has been written on the versatility of a 16" mid-length.

I have a 14.5 and a 20 now so my next will be a 16 mid.

The 16 mid is supposed to provide you with almost the same amount of accuracy as the 20 and no headaches of an improperly tuned shorter length.

I don't have the exact numbers that were posted by Kevin B. and others on hand right now which is why this is a bit vague.
Click to expand...

Barrel length has little to do with accuracy. Shorter barrels are inherently stronger due to less barrel whip when firing. Velocity(a function of the barrel) is what plays a big role in accuracy by directly affecting trajectory. At lower velocities projectiles lose stability and are more susceptible to wind drift. The greater the distance, with a lower initial velocity, the greater the problems. Which means less predictable and repeatable accuracy.

As to the original question. It really depends on what you want to do with it. 16" carbine barrels will allow you to go the US and produce similar ballistics to that of a 20". A 16" mid-length will do all the above, and do it with a less violent force on your action. The downside to mid-length is the relative difficulty in finding handguards that fit. Most offerings are readily available in carbine and rifle length, not mid-length. Same goes for gas tubes.

The 14.5" is "traditional" in length. Other than that it doesn't offer anything as far as performance that a 16" carbine or mid-length can't meet or beat. Some prefer the original look and that drives their choice. Others are motivated by performance.

TDC
 
Get the book I was mentioning. The book is called Green Eyes and Black Rifles. He talks all about barrel length, weight, twist, and material.

Awesome way to figure out what barrel best suits your needs. It seems to be so much more than just length.
 
I would get the 14.5" but probably not a Dlask -- I don't know that I like to stray out to the big name (ABC) manufacturers. If you can score an LMT/Noveske that would be even better.
 
Just finished my final (!!) build/rebuild, and went with a 16" Noveske recon middy. It's a mid-weight, halfway between a gov't profile and an HB. Stainless, with a black Ion Bond finish. Looks great and shoots great. I ended up keeping the full-length Troy rail system, so sourcing middy rails wasn't an issue. I find the full-length handguards keep the hot barrel off your thigh when you're carrying with a sling.
 
I would suggest the longer barrel for better cycling and better velocity. Accuracy is not an issue.

...of course I am partial to Krieger AR barrels :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom