Page 2 of 2

Re: 16” barrel discussion

Posted: Sat Dec 14, 2019 8:19 pm
by bearcatrp
dellet wrote: Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:24 pm Unless you reload, it appears you probably don’t, I would stay away from something like the 300 Ham’r until there is more available ammo.

This link will take you to a number of discussions about enhanced carriers, it might answer some other questions along the way. Pay attention to member DR. Phil he has links to different studies.

search.php?keywords=Enhanced+bolt+carrier
Dellet is correct, don't get the HAM'R if you don't reload. Plus, as stated above, going suppressed will not work with this barrel from what I have read. If I didn't have 2 BO AR's, I would have considered building a AR with a HAM'R barrel. Only about 200-300 fps more.

Re: 16” barrel discussion

Posted: Tue Dec 24, 2019 8:06 am
by Austin26
New question at the end of this post! Thank y'all for your help. I haven't posted on an internet message board in years and was happy to see that I got sincere and helpful responses.

Unfortunately, I did not take the advice on the barrel and bolt for the time being. Upon reading more and watching reviews on barrels and BCGs, it may not be worth it for me to sink the extra money into something I may not notice much of a difference in the end (little return). It wasn't my intention to waste your time and I appreciate your response. If I'm unhappy with how it shoots I'll buy a higher quality barrel. I bought a Faxon 16" 1:8 barrel.

From my 6.8 build, I found a new 5.56 bolt and decided to see how that does. The bolt itself, shame on me, I do not know the manufacturer. It's likely Spike's or Seekins. I got a Toolcraft BCG and replaced the bolt with my bolt as it has some fancy coating and appears nicer.

Oh and to be clear, hitting 3/5 or 4/5 human sized targets at 500m was with iron sights. I'd imagine it would be better if they let us qualify with the ACOGs we normally used on our rifles.

I partly liked this barrel because it has a large gas port of 0.125 (16", carbine gas length) and it would appear that no matter the type of round or even if I did want to go suppressed one day, that it'll work fine. An adjustable gas block would seem to be necessary, correct? I'll mostly shoot 125-110 grain super sonic. If adjustable gas blocks really do lessen the fatigue the action experiences and also causes less fouling and recoil, I'd like to get one. Can someone verify this or correct my line of thinking please?

Re: 16” barrel discussion

Posted: Sun Dec 29, 2019 5:20 pm
by plant.one
with a 0.125" gas port you're for sure going to want the adjustable gas block.

even with a carbine length systme thats going to be WAY over gassed for supers.

as dellet mentioned, 0.070 or even a 0.080 would have served you much better overall - especially if you were to go suppressed in the future. but nothing the adjustable block cant fix for the poor design by the barrel mfg.

Re: 16” barrel discussion

Posted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:58 pm
by Austin26
plant.one wrote: Sun Dec 29, 2019 5:20 pm with a 0.125" gas port you're for sure going to want the adjustable gas block.

even with a carbine length systme thats going to be WAY over gassed for supers.

as dellet mentioned, 0.070 or even a 0.080 would have served you much better overall - especially if you were to go suppressed in the future. but nothing the adjustable block cant fix for the poor design by the barrel mfg.
Thank you. Those are my thoughts as well. Next question, I have my rifle together now and am needing to tune the gas block. I'm under the impression that using the lowest potential pressured round (heavy grain subsonic) to tune it would be the best choice as it'll work with any ammunition including supersonics which will be 90% of the time for me. It'll be slightly overgassed for supers but adequate for any rounds I put in it. Is this logic correct? Do y'all have any other advice or tips? Thank you in advance.

I don't think it matters but it's a JP Enterprises adjustable gas block and the port is carbine length.