A Few Lightweights

[jmoore]

Having picked up a new LE 6720, we hit the range.

I still find the old format with the 1-12" twist barrel perfectly good. But I'm failing it! Old eye are fuzzing out the front sight pretty badly, unless "special" glasses are worn, which sort of defeats the practical purpose of the carbine.

After shooting a less than spectacular group with some PPU 55gr ammo (Not what the rifle was zeroed with, BTW) a 3x Colt scope was thrown on to make sure it was operator error. It was....


Scope came of promptly, but no photo.

Next is an old A2 Gov't Carbine with the 1-7" twist barrel. Still under 6 pounds!
Far easier to shoot well due to the two stage Geissele FCG (fire control group- AKA trigger, hammer and springs). Don't let folk tell you that a good trigger isn't of benefit on these little rifles! Especially when shooting standing, it makes breaking the shot precisely much less "iffy"!



And the New Kid:


Barrel's dated 10-11 so it's reasonably fresh off the line.That's how they come out of the box, except for the Aimpoint T1 on the LaRue mount. Which mount turns out to be rather ill suited fr this carbine. Too dang tall! Not a bottom 1/3 co-witness- more like a bottom 1/8 poor witness. It's so high the view through the peep is distorted which throws the iron sight zero off. BLAH! The "reddot" is a help, but I don't trust anything that relies on batteries. And if it goes out, what do you do? Fumble about and pull the sight? Or deal with the messed up sight picture? I'd shorten the mount, but the center has been hollowed out so much its fairly impractical.

The thing is that the whole set-up is still only about 6 1/2 lbs.

ACOG is an option, but adds considerable weight.

And "fancy" is already spoken for:



The Knight's is super fantastic, but it's pushing 8 1/2 pounds! Any more and you begin thinking a 7,62x51 rifle might be fine, after all. Just way less ammo...

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[browningautorifle]

The last comment really hit's home with our service rifle. We started with the low maintenance, light weight jungle carbine you guys fielded, and we up-graded it until it weighed what the FN used to. I think if you go for light weight, keep it that way. The first carbines were the right idea and somewhere along the way we got lost. I carried the first and second models and they were a dream. I built the last type and it's a bit heavy.

[jmoore]

It's easy to get carried away. Two of the lightweights above still weigh less together than the 16" barreled 7,62x51 L129a1 British DMR:

[browningautorifle]

But in 7.62 it would have quite a smack...I'd like to try that one.

[jmoore]

For my own purposes, the .223 is preferable. If I was having to engage targets past 200m or shoot through mud brick walls, then the 7,62 would surely be better.

For whatever reason, I prefer the M14 as a 7,62x51 platform. The several AR10 variants tried to date just haven't been altogether satisfactory.

The FN SCAR 17s seems good, but it's kinda "Glock-like" in that it's a capable but boring tool. Too good? Possibly! No real quirks unless the charging handle bothers you.

At any rate, I like the AR carbines. It took a long time to go from despising it (due to others' opinions) to appreciating what it WILL do very well (based on my own experiences.)