Yes very aware. Did you notice the comment by Bill about the mil getting with the 21st century? It's like the rest of the world knew that mid length is superior but big green is stuck in their old ways. I'm sure part of the reason for not adopting mid length sooner or in greater numbers has to do with logistics and cost.
Advice on my first AR
- Thread starter Terentius
- Start date
Yes very aware. Did you notice the comment by Bill about the mil getting with the 21st century? It's like the rest of the world knew that mid length is superior but big green is stuck in their old ways. I'm sure part of the reason for not adopting mid length sooner or in greater numbers has to do with logistics and cost.
I did. It just didn't have anything to do with any of the posts I made in this thread. I never said anything disparaging about mid length gas systems I actually think they're pretty great. I simply pointed out that while you were saying "if it's not mil-spec it's crap" the mid length gas systems you were touting weren't mil-spec.
r34skyline
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
But... they are now. And iirc some of the delta guys were rocking midlength guns before this no?
Gas systems on ARs get better the further out they are. Carbine is worst, mid-length is a good all-around, rifle-length is best. Especially on an 18" or 20" barrell, which is how the AR was originally designed and how it is meant to be operated. From my personal research over the years I've found that the consensus on Carbine-length is that it's the least reliable of the three. The other two are closer together in that regard.
My first AR is a 16" with the mid-length gas system. I probably won't go for anything shorter than that because of reliability, accuracy, a loss of velocity and most annoying of all, noise level.
My first AR is a 16" with the mid-length gas system. I probably won't go for anything shorter than that because of reliability, accuracy, a loss of velocity and most annoying of all, noise level.
Last edited:
I quoted your post that directly relates to this information. I am a fan of milspec guns and all the accompanying parts. However, as I posted previously the carbine length gas system is sub optimal and is not needed on guns with 14.5" barrels or longer. I opt for improved performance in the mid length system over the carbine whenever possible. I would opt for rifle length systems if it was possible but a 16" barrel achieves over 96% of the velocity of a 20" and is therefore not a benefit. I do have carbine gas rifles but they sport shorter barrels. My position on "milspec or crap" has to do with materials, craftsmanship and meeting the TDP in other areas which includes gas system etc. The fact that mid length systems have been proven to be superior to carbine is what validates my decision(and others) to use it. Using sub standard materials constructed under sub standard(milspec) criteria/conditions has proven not to be a benefit, that's the difference. Yes, you could say my mid length rifles are not 100% milspec(until now) but they are 100% milspec in the areas where it counts.
Kosmonument has it figured out..
and that was all that I ever said. It was you that went on and on (and on and on) about mil-spec being the best thing since sliced bread. I personally could not care less about what other people shoot as long as it meets their needs.
I never said one was inferior or superior. You said milspec or its junk and then talked up a non milspec attribute. I realize you're incredibly reluctant to admit that you hold a massive double standard but I have no issue repeatedly pointing it out to you if need be.
There's no double standard just simple data that proves a mid length system is superior and as I posted the switched on MIL types agree as does anyone else with a mediocre IQ. If you can explain how the mid length system is somehow inferior or a detriment to the setup I'm all ears. Again, you seem to miss the point about milspec parts/guns. The important aspects are materials and manufacturing processes. Gas block placement is in fact a part of the TDP but it has ZERO negative effect (in this case) on the performance nor does it effect the quality of a milspec gun or its parts. If it makes you feel better I have carbine length milspec guns as well.
In summary the whole point to the milspec discussion is that milspec is a STANDARD. Outside of milspec there is NO STANDARD to speak of. Buying a rifle or parts that do not adhere to the milspec standard is a gamble. Some guns/parts are well made and do not follow the TDP while most that do not follow the TDP are "hobby grade" or junk rifles by comparison.
So sometimes milspec is the be all and end all, and sometimes it doesn't matter at all? You're going to be disappointed but that's the definition of a double standard. What you (or anyone else) does or doesn't shoot is completely irrelevant to me. As I said before, if a gun does what someone wants it to whatever "spec" it's built to is of no consequence.
Which is why when this conversation started I asked about examples of the Colt Expanse (or "Out of spec crap" as you referred to them) rifles failing. The problem with specs is that they're based on speculative performance, not actual. What might not hold up to your shooting, seems to be holding up fine for others regardless your opinion of them.
I too was in the same boat not long ago, was torn between buy or build myself. Had shot friends ar’s that ranged from norc’s to kac products! Ultimately I chose to build myself and use as many Canadian products as possible and found it much more rewarding! My build consisted of a colt diemaco lower a 15.7 colt Canada iur triggertech fully adjustable flat trigger Elian optic now I did use kac ambi mag release and safety which was a great addition. Added a socom stock and a few other pieces. My build came in under that 3k budget. Biggest thing I found was build to your needs. I run my gun through a variety of application from standard training and patterns off a bench even plinking and I’m more then pleased with the outcom! Happy hunting
The failings occur daily and are often topics on this forum. The ones that haven't failed (yet) either will in future if they see enough rounds (unlikely as most prefer to play dress up with their rifles rather than shoot them) or simply run the risk of failing at anytime. Inferior materials and craftsmanship does not need to fail to prove they are inferior. A superior material and/or craftsmanship need only exist. Wood stocks fail more often and are inferior to synthetic stocks. You don't have to have a busted or split wood stock to prove this. You are however correct in that for many a non milspec gun will likely do the job for their entire lifetime. However, to make the claim that your non milspec gun is just as good as a milspec one is plain false. When tested to failure or for life cycle or reliability/durability a non milspec rifle is inferior to a milspec one.
Here's a simple comparison. A plastic knife works just fine at the local rodeo/bbq. A steel knife is superior and will last much longer and fail far less often. Both would get the job done at the rodeo/bbq but the cost of purchasing steel flatware makes it impractical.
