The Firing Line Forums
Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > S.W.A.T. Magazine

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 6, 2008, 07:39 PM   #1
gordo b.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2002
Location: Peoples republik of Calif.
Posts: 963
20" barrel performance and SwanGoose neck

Like I'm gonna miss an oppurtunity to ask THE man a carbine question or two thats been bugging me!BTW I'm trying to get out to Boone County this Summer for a class!
First the AR; having used one of these contraptions since 1968 with the 101st ABN, in the middle 70s with the DEA , and off and on since then with some good training in the last 7 years, I have come to conclusions contrary to Mr. Rogers on a couple minor points. Please correct my wrong thinking! #1 I prefer a 20" light profile barrel to a 14.5" 'military profile' barrel.To me , if a .22 doesn't have velocity it has nothing, and I want that 3000+fps the concept was developed with. I think a Barnes 53 grain triple shock would do everything the cartridge was designed to do , within about 225yards or so. Further than that -get a rifle!I have not found any Military 'heavy ball ' to break 2600 fps out of a 14.5" barrel and in my way of thinking is you got a small, relatively light projo at AK velocities-not impressive! Also I believe that the original 20" barrel length is more reliable for functioning, am I wrong? Course the M4 feed ramps help, wish I had them on my 20 " SP-1 barrel!
I am in full agreement about stock length and usage, with a collapsed ACE Socom I don't have a 'fence post'! I have always flicked a mean buttstroke in the last 40, so I like the 'meat hammer' on the toe of that stock, and yes I know how to poke too! What I don't quite see yet is the disparaging remarks about the 'old thinking' Swan cantilever forward of the handle mounting of an Aim Point. I tried to follow the thinking about co witnessing the dot to the top of the irons is a distraction.It never seemed so to me, but I am a lousy shot sometimes. Thing is I can ditch the Aimpoint and have the best set of irons going if I have to and the Aim point goes back on pretty close to a verifiable center and seems protected down there by the extra 6 oz. of Aluminum. Have you had physical problems with this system?. I know you can't use the hot new magnifiers with it. Now I have a Colt Flattop with an added LMT 14.5"+ pinned Vortex with a Trigicon 3x and with the front rails and Buis's I don't see that much difference in Necktie weight, and darn it I can't shoot 250-400 rounds with out having to oil up this thing just like I've allways has to do with my old (much lighter)1976 SP-1 CAR !
Course I am now a low speed High drag operator these days! But what about the 20" barrel for performance and reliability along with the old 'obsolete' Swan gooseneck and co witness deal!

Last edited by gordo b.; January 6, 2008 at 10:27 PM.
gordo b. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7, 2008, 07:57 AM   #2
Pat Rogers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2001
Posts: 303
This is the wrong forum for this, but as you asked here, i'll be happy to answer here!
I'm not sure who you are referring to, because i don't, never have, and never will consider myself to be the guy behind the burning bush. Having said that, hope to see you at one of the Boone County classes this year.
I am on a tight time line, so answers below in bold


Like I'm gonna miss an oppurtunity to ask THE man a carbine question or two thats been bugging me!BTW I'm trying to get out to Boone County this Summer for a class!
First the AR; having used one of these contraptions since 1968 (Me too!) with the 101st ABN, in the middle 70s with the DEA , and off and on since then with some good training in the last 7 years, I have come to conclusions contrary to Mr. Rogers on a couple minor points. Please correct my wrong thinking!
My attitude is to define the mission and get the gear that best fits the mission. The mission drives the gear train. No wrong thinking unless it conflicts w/ mission accomplishment
#1 I prefer a 20" light profile barrel to a 14.5" 'military profile' barrel.
Your preference is for your use- I don't see a strong need for a long barreled 5.56 in the hands of Grunts or cops.
To me , if a .22 doesn't have velocity it has nothing, and I want that 3000+fps the concept was developed with. I think a Barnes 53 grain triple shock would do everything the cartridge was designed to do , within about 225yards or so.
The M16 family, no matter the barrel length, is a 250m gun- which fills the mil/ cop niche well. My ammo rolls arouns what is issued- M855, MK262, or at class, whatever i can lay my hands on. For real use, MK262 or Hornady 75gr TAP
Further than that -get a rifle!I have not found any Military 'heavy ball ' to break 2600 fps out of a 14.5" barrel and in my way of thinking is you got a small, relatively light projo at AK velocities-not impressive!
I have seen a lot of people turned into canoes as the result of injesting 22LR, .25, .32, .38 etc to make me believe that shot placement is more important than anything else (with qualifiers attached of course...
Also I believe that the original 20" barrel length is more reliable for functioning, am I wrong? Course the M4 feed ramps help, wish I had them on my 20 " SP-1 barrel!
The 20" barrel is/ should be more reliable. However, i have seen/ used barrel lengths from 10.5-14.5 that have gone for 0ver 10,000 rds without a stoppage (we keep gun books..). I believe the M4 feed ramp is a VERY GOOD THING. It may not be "necessary", but neither does it hurt.
I am in full agreement about stock length and usage, with a collapsed ACE Socom I don't have a 'fence post'!
I am not familiar with an ACE stock, buy you are right on shorter LOP.
I have always flicked a mean buttstroke in the last 40, so I like the 'meat hammer' on the toe of that stock, and yes I know how to poke too!
I believe that a vertical buttstroke may have some validity in Infantry type Alamo scenarios, but absolutely not in the cop world. I have a report somewhere in the files where a cop killed another cop when he buttsroked someone who needed shooting. Rule #2 is there for a reason.
What I don't quite see yet is the disparaging remarks about the 'old thinking' Swan cantilever forward of the handle mounting of an Aim Point.
Yeah, that was the hot tip 10-15 years ago, when flat tops were in their infancy. Here are my thoughts against it.
Optic is too far foward- this precude PEQ-2, ATPAIL etc
The mount is not very rigid. maybe enough for most applications, but thats about all
I don't now, and never will, own anything from that company. Personal reasons aside, the QC is not what i believe to be viable

I tried to follow the thinking about co witnessing the dot to the top of the irons is a distraction.It never seemed so to me, but I am a lousy shot sometimes.
If you don't find it a distraction, run with it. My experience is that those few who show up with it at class have problems
Thing is I can ditch the Aimpoint and have the best set of irons going if I have to and the Aim point goes back on pretty close to a verifiable center and seems protected down there by the extra 6 oz. of Aluminum. Have you had physical problems with this system?.
On a flat top, you don't have to remove the optic. You can use a folding or conventional BUIS in the lower 1/3 and do it faster.
I know you can't use the hot new magnifiers with it. Now I have a Colt Flattop with an added LMT 14.5"+ pinned Vortex with a Trigicon 3x and with the front rails and Buis's I don't see that much difference in Necktie weight, and darn it I can't shoot 250-400 rounds with out having to oil up this thing just like I've allways has to do with my old (much lighter)1976 SP-1 CAR !
Course I am now a low speed High drag operator these days!
Gee Gordo, sounds like you have seen the light after all!
But what about the 20" barrel for performance and reliability along with the old 'obsolete' Swan gooseneck and co witness deal!
__________________
S/F

Pat sends
www.eagtactical.com

Last edited by Pat Rogers; January 7, 2008 at 09:47 AM.
Pat Rogers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 7, 2008, 11:22 AM   #3
gordo b.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2002
Location: Peoples republik of Calif.
Posts: 963
Thank you sir! They were questions raised from your SWAT articles.
gordo b. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 9, 2008, 06:07 PM   #4
Army GI
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2006
Posts: 284
Hm. Not much more you can add to that
Army GI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15, 2008, 03:29 PM   #5
Pat Rogers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2001
Posts: 303
There is probably something more that can be added to it.
I try to base my opinions on my observations- my frame of reference.
It may not be what others see, but it is what i see, so i'm kinda' comfortable with it.
The bottom line is that what works for one may or may not work for another.
__________________
S/F

Pat sends
www.eagtactical.com
Pat Rogers is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Page generated in 0.08148 seconds with 9 queries