New MWS article in G&A Combat Tactics - Page 3

TRIDENT82 · #41 11-14-10, 23:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by variablebinary

Though, lets not forget the MWS is an MRP, and that opens up a whole slew of possibilities

The MWS has stainless and military type barrels as an option. You have a 13.5" SBR, 16" and 20" barrel lengths. .260 is in the works.

Also, I need to double check the weight on the LMT...

Edit: the LMT MWS is 9.9lbs. That is more than capable for a battle rifle or DMR

Your assuming that these people are schooled up on the MRP/MWS in the first place....folks cannot forget something that they have yet to grasp

I applaud your effort pal but the MRP/MWS infinite universe seems to be a bit too vast and deep for some to comprehend.

JPB · #42 11-15-10, 00:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIDENT82

Your assuming that these people are schooled up on the MRP/MWS in the first place....folks cannot forget something that they have yet to grasp

I applaud your effort pal but the MRP/MWS infinite universe seems to be a bit too vast and deep for some to comprehend.

Actually, as the person he was responding to, I've been down the MRP road. I'm not real sure how much diversity the MRP really offers. Second only to HK in ignoring commercial demand, both of these MRPs suffer from barrel options that will only serve a small subset of purchasers. Heck, my 6.8 MRP barrel was poppin' primers like it was a Dillon 550... I'm off the MRP horse until they start offering better barrel options. They need to release the proprietary barrel extensions for use by other barrel manufacturers. It'd be awesome to get Noveske, Centurion, and DD MRP barrels. For a receiver as heavy as the MRP's, they need to offer a light weight barrel (hammer forged too!) for both the 5.56 and 7.62.

It saddens me to see so few barrel choices from LMT, especially when the three previously mentioned barrel manufactures offer barrels in just about any length/weight/gas length/material combination but no quick barrel change receiver! These folks need to get together and sell some product.

JPB · #43 11-15-10, 01:25

Oh, and...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXSUT

Edited, refrain from this conduct in tech . PM sent. ~ cold

Nicely played sir....

Winnerkd · #44 11-15-10, 01:30

I'd have no problem owning them both if I had the money, I find it extremely easy to set up the LMT like a DMR and the EMC as a more battle rifle type weapon. That said, that money tree in my back yard isn't growing and I keep dumping Miracle Grow on it! I'm still waiting for LMT's 20'' CL offering.

lj_1187 · #45 11-15-10, 01:48

I dont get why a lot of guys are dismissing the MWS in the battle rifle role. Sure it is another pound or two heavier than the EMC, but I would think my buddies in Afghanistan would LOVE to have this sucker in their hands as the Brits do, and they sure as hell won't complain over one or two pounds. So why are us civi's who tear up paper with them at the range whinning about the weight? If you are a perfectionist and dont mind spending $5000 on something you wont ever take to combat, go ahead and get the EMC. My MWS has more than impressed me, and I could never see how paying over $3000 more than my MWS cost me would be worth it.

variablebinary · #46 11-15-10, 04:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by lj_1187

I dont get why a lot of guys are dismissing the MWS in the battle rifle role. Sure it is another pound or two heavier than the EMC, but I would think my buddies in Afghanistan would LOVE to have this sucker in their hands as the Brits do, and they sure as hell won't complain over one or two pounds. So why are us civi's who tear up paper with them at the range whinning about the weight? If you are a perfectionist and dont mind spending $5000 on something you wont ever take to combat, go ahead and get the EMC. My MWS has more than impressed me, and I could never see how paying over $3000 more than my MWS cost me would be worth it.

If someone took the time to "dimple" or turn down the MWS barrel, it would be the same weight as the EMC.

I thought the LMT was much heavier, but it isnt. And there is no way the KAC EMC does anything better than the LMT MWS in a fashion that commands double the price.

I see it as a matter of preference more than anything else. But in reality, the MWS is cheaper, more versatile, but no less capable. Plus, I'd rather have an MRP than a URX

OTO27 · #47 11-15-10, 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by variablebinary

If someone took the time to "dimple" or turn down the MWS barrel, it would be the same weight as the EMC.

I thought the LMT was much heavier, but it isnt. And there is no way the KAC EMC does anything better than the LMT MWS in a fashion that commands double the price.

I see it as a matter of preference more than anything else. But in reality, the MWS is cheaper, more versatile, but no less capable. Plus, I'd rather have an MRP than a URX

Well the thing is, you can dimple or flute all you want the MWS barrel. Its been done before and theres a thread here on it floating around. But you can not reduce were most of the weight is, at the barrel extension. Another thing is, they should have stuck to a gas rifle length and not a mid.

I still dont know if all this justifies the EMC's price tag, but I am no industry expert, I just love guns. If I had to guess, it may be a suply in demand thing. They have to fill all those military/LE contracts and on top of that keep up with civies. If they made it dirt cheap I beat they would start falling behind or quality control would suffer in order to keep rifles rolling ot. This is just a theory though.

TRIDENT82 · #48 11-15-10, 15:49

How is that the EMC could justify a 5k price tag due to Military contract orders when the only gun b/t the MWS and EMC that has a Military contract is the MWS.

For those that feel the gas length is a problem on the MWS's...could you please elaborate technically speaking as to why its such an advantage to run the rifle length gas system and why you "got it" and LMT did not.

Belmont31R · #49 11-15-10, 16:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIDENT82

How is that the EMC could justify a 5k price tag due to Military contract orders when the only gun b/t the MWS and EMC that has a Military contract is the MWS.

For those that feel the gas length is a problem on the MWS's...could you please elaborate technically speaking as to why its such an advantage to run the rifle length gas system and why you "got it" and LMT did not.

Im not 100% sure but KAC sells lots of 308 SR25's to the government. Maybe not the exact EMC config but they have sold carbines in the past. LMT's MWS contract is with the British MOD not the US mil.

The rifle gas makes for a lot softer shooting gun, less muzzle rise, ect. The gun is a lot more controllable than the MWS, and weighs less. LMT probably went with the shorter gas system because rifle length gas setups on carbines can be tricky, and they don't lend themselves well to shooting weak ammo. KAC had issues in the past with people bitching about running weak ammo in their guns, and having issues. Depends on how you look at it but would you rather run weak/shitty ammo or have less recoil with quality ammo? No right or wrong answer to that as its just a preference. I know my EMC shoots softer than the MWS even with a battle comp so there is quite a bit of benefit to running a longer gas system tuned for mil spec ammo.

Belmont31R · #50 11-15-10, 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by lj_1187

I dont get why a lot of guys are dismissing the MWS in the battle rifle role. Sure it is another pound or two heavier than the EMC, but I would think my buddies in Afghanistan would LOVE to have this sucker in their hands as the Brits do, and they sure as hell won't complain over one or two pounds. So why are us civi's who tear up paper with them at the range whinning about the weight? If you are a perfectionist and dont mind spending $5000 on something you wont ever take to combat, go ahead and get the EMC. My MWS has more than impressed me, and I could never see how paying over $3000 more than my MWS cost me would be worth it.

Then where do you draw the line? My MWS with a short-dot, light, mag, vfg, ect was over 13lbs.

TRIDENT82 · #51 11-15-10, 16:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belmont31R

Im not 100% sure but KAC sells lots of 308 SR25's to the government. Maybe not the exact EMC config but they have sold carbines in the past. LMT's MWS contract is with the British MOD not the US mil.

The rifle gas makes for a lot softer shooting gun, less muzzle rise, ect. The gun is a lot more controllable than the MWS, and weighs less. LMT probably went with the shorter gas system because rifle length gas setups on carbines can be tricky, and they don't lend themselves well to shooting weak ammo. KAC had issues in the past with people bitching about running weak ammo in their guns, and having issues. Depends on how you look at it but would you rather run weak/shitty ammo or have less recoil with quality ammo? No right or wrong answer to that as its just a preference. I know my EMC shoots softer than the MWS even with a battle comp so there is quite a bit of benefit to running a longer gas system tuned for mil spec ammo.

I agree by in large w. the above....however the EMC to my knowledge does not have a Mil contract like the Marine's M110 for example. The MWS in its config has the MoD contract. So again obviously the Mil contract does not justify the EMC costing twice as much.

As for the gas length portion....I agree with your end conclusion being that its not a right or wrong way but rather a preference issue. Some people cannot understand that LMT and KAC might know a bit more than they do about gas systems on ARs and had good reason for designing their guns the way they did.

Belmont31R · #52 11-15-10, 16:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by variablebinary

If someone took the time to "dimple" or turn down the MWS barrel, it would be the same weight as the EMC.

I thought the LMT was much heavier, but it isnt. And there is no way the KAC EMC does anything better than the LMT MWS in a fashion that commands double the price.

I see it as a matter of preference more than anything else. But in reality, the MWS is cheaper, more versatile, but no less capable. Plus, I'd rather have an MRP than a URX

The EMC is a better gun in almost every way, and if you want to spend money on the MWS to get it kinda close to the EMC the price gap shrinks quite a bit, even then it won't be an EMC in overall shooting experience.

Belmont31R · #53 11-15-10, 16:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIDENT82

I agree by in large w. the above....however the EMC to my knowledge does not have a Mil contract like the Marine's M110 for example. The MWS in its config has the MoD contract. So again obviously the Mil contract does not justify the EMC costing twice as much.

As for the gas length portion....I agree with your end conclusion being that its not a right or wrong way but rather a preference issue. Some people cannot understand that LMT and KAC might know a bit more than they do about gas systems on ARs and had good reason for designing their guns the way they did.

Its just the way contract laws work with the gov. You can't sell the same or very similar items to civies for less than you sell to the gov. I am sure KAC would love to sell us 3500 dollar EMC's but then they would most likely have to sell gov guns for that amount, too. Since the majority of their business is military sales they aren't going to do that. They would have to present a case of why they can sell an EMC for 3500 to us but they are selling basically the same gun to the gov for 5k or whatever it is they are selling them for.

The same reason EOTech's and Aimpoints are so expensive for a tiny little electronic device. Leupold tactical scopes are way more pricey than the regular VXIII line even though they are essentially the same scope. Just different reticles and turrets. ACOG's have been going up in price a lot in the last 5 years due to the contracts. The M24 gov package from remington is around $7500.

40Arpent · #54 11-15-10, 20:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belmont31R

The EMC is a better gun in almost every way....

I finally got to shoot an EMC recently, and I couldn't agree with you more.

TRIDENT82 · #55 11-15-10, 20:46

The only way the EMC is better in every way than a MWS is in a carbine or battle rifle config...if believe any different than you are drinking to much koolaid.

Call me when I can get a Rock SS .260 rem barreled monolithic railed EMC.

Belmont31R · #56 11-15-10, 20:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by TRIDENT82

The only way the EMC is better in every way than a MWS is in a carbine or battle rifle config...if believe any different than you are drinking to much koolaid.

Call me when I can get a Rock SS .260 rem barreled monolithic railed EMC.

Whats your experience been like with the MWS and EMC shooting out to long range?

Uh you can't even get that in an MWS right now.

Nevermiss · #57 11-15-10, 21:53

I've been reading this thread with great interest. My only 308 AR experience is with my JP LRP-07. It has a PRS stock and the VTAC rail with the 18" barrel and JP BC muzzle break with the low mass operating system and the JP adjustable gas block.

I guess it's really not considered a "battle rifle" but it has been 100% reliable with everything that I have put through it. Perhaps it would be more "battle ready" with a non-adjustable gas block and a flash hider/muzzle break like the BABC.

I posted this because I wonder if anyone else has shot this rifle. With Win 147 gr 7.62 NATO, this rifle recoils like a standard .223 AR. I'm generally a middle of the pack 3 gun shooter and last month at a local match, I beat all 20 shooters on two run and gun rifle stages except one shooter on one stage with a .223. This is to not to indicate my ability, but really what the gun is capable of doing. Recoil really is negligible.

I've been thinking about getting another one with a lighter stock, 16" barrel, and maybe a different gas block just to have a lighter 308 and perhaps use at a carbine course in the future.

However, I think the novelty and quality of the EMC has also peaked my interest. I don't "need" a battle rifle, but I am firearms enthusiast and always looking to add a top notch, quality rifle to my collection that I enjoy shooting. I don't know what the EMCs run, and I don't remember what my JP cost, but the price has gone up and now my configuration would run about $3600.

Has anyone had a chance to shoot both the LRP-07 and the EMC? I would be interested in your thoughts comparing the two.

Also, does anyone know what ballpark price the EMC runs?

I'm sorry this was a bit of a thread drift.

Belmont31R · #58 11-15-10, 22:34

Never shot the JP but the EMC is around 5k.

Ive seem them advertised for a little bit less but thats usually not from a stocking dealer. One I talked to would do 4600 but would have to order the rifle. I went with a dealer (Gun Gallery in TX) that had them in stock, and I had it the next day.

variablebinary · #59 11-15-10, 22:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Belmont31R

The EMC is a better gun in almost every way, and if you want to spend money on the MWS to get it kinda close to the EMC the price gap shrinks quite a bit, even then it won't be an EMC in overall shooting experience.

I'd rather the MWS.

The prospect of 20" stainless barrels and 13" SBR barrels with a suppressor are far more valuable to me than anything KAC is doing right now

The MRP just brings far more to the table than the URX. Unless a person wants to pony up another $3000 for additional KAC uppers. I know I don't

Hell, For $5000 I could have a MWS, suppressor and optic, with maybe enough cash for a spare SBR barrel

Belmont31R · #60 11-15-10, 23:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by variablebinary

I'd rather the MWS.

The prospect of 20" stainless barrels and 13" SBR barrels with a suppressor are far more valuable to me than anything KAC is doing right now

The MRP just brings far more to the table than the URX. Unless a person wants to pony up another $3000 for additional KAC uppers. I know I don't

Hell, For $5000 I could have a MWS, suppressor and optic, with maybe enough cash for a spare SBR barrel

Have fun with a 13" barrel....you'll get 7.62x39 like performance out of it.

The EMC is plenty accurate to extended ranges, and as per the testing KAC has done there is not a significant velocity loss from 20" barrels to 16".

The 260 is a nice round ballistics wise but has poor ammo selection, and its more expensive than 308. Theres no FMJ rounds that Im aware of.

Most people have no need for a quick change barrel feature. This gets back to the MRP debate we've had before so Im not going rehash it for a 3rd or 4th time now.

What Im talking about is actually shooting the gun from CQB to long range. The EMC is a much better shooter. Believe me Ive owned both, and shooting them side by side the EMC is a lot better gun for both types of shooting. Even with the BABC on my MWS it still had more recoil and muzzle movement than the EMC with just the M110 FH. The MWS weighs more and is very front heavy. The stock MWS trigger is a cheap copy of the SSA, and would need to be replaced IMO.

Ive said it a few times the MWS is a really good gun, and the barrel change thing is neat if you're into that but when it comes to sending lead down range the EMC is the better gun, and that is what counts the most not being able to have 5 different barrels and caliber changes to rounds with comparatively little factory round support.