View Full Version : Perfecting the Recce concept: The case for .308/7.62
No wheels being reinvented here gents, but rather just wanted to share some more of my always evolving thoughts on one of my favorite niches within the realm of ARs...the light precision 16" configuration. Any discussion or opinions on topic that get stirred up are certainly welcomed. With my normal caveat I'll just emphasize that everything contained below is nothing more than my personal thoughts, ideas, and found conclusions in regards to the Recce concept.
For the purposes of this thread/discussion, the Recce concept will be defined as a 16" match barreled AR that incorporates several key components in order to create a highly accurized AR/M4 rifle. Match grade barrels, mid range variable powered optics, 2 stage triggers, long FF rails, bipods, etc., are all components that often times are found on Recce configured rifles.
Lastly, and without diving back into the history books, the origins of the Recce/Recon/Seal Recon Rifle/sniper-m4 concept all lie within the original Special Purpose Receiver (SPR) program in which the SPR/MK 12 rifles have now grown out of. So traditionally speaking, the Recce concept is based, and designed around the .223/5.56 caliber for the record.
Defining the critical areas, and requirements associated with the Recce concept
1.) Must achieve high levels of accuracy/Precision on command: Generally 1 MOA or less is the norm for a Recce configured rifle with match quality ammo. These accuracy/precision capabilities must be readily repeatable, and on command regardless of the conditions that may be present...i.e. what you know you can hit VS. what you think you can hit.
2.)Significantly increases maximum effective range(MER): With the large aid of powered optics on a Recce, one can expect to see on average around a 40% increase in max effective range(MER) over a standard RDS/iron sight equipped AR/M4. Personally I've found this translates to roughly 200-300yds more over a standard AR/M4....AR/M4 = 4-500yds Recce = 6-800yds (YMMV).
3.) Overall must maintain max portability while fully satisfying the first two critical areas above. Without precision, and increased max effective range, portability doesn't offer anything different that the standard 14.5"/16" AR/M4 doesn't already offer. Nonetheless, portability is a vital part of the Recce concept. By nature, this rifle concept is one in which it will be humped essentially the same as a patrol AR, or standard M4 would be regardless if your a soldier or hunter whom uses it. Traditionally speaking, a good average weight for a Recce rifle is around 9-11lbs, and an OAL between 32"- 34".
First critical area: A Recce should be capable of delivering very high levels of repeatable accuracy and precision on command. After examining numerous 10rd/100yd groups with both .223/.308 Recce rifles, I can find no discernible decrease in accuracy/precision between either specimen. Both can continually produce sub MOA/10rd groups with several types of factory match quality type ammo. I'm just posting some handy, rather cherry picked group examples just to display the almost equal level of accuracy/precision on both these rifles.
MWS Recce:
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/target75.jpg
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/target42.jpg
VS.
MRP Recce:
http://i39.tinypic.com/fycxoz.jpg
http://i51.tinypic.com/30xg66g.jpg
After shooting, and then examining large group samples for each rifle (numerous amounts of 10rd/100yd groups), I've found that both rifles dip well below the 1moa or less requirement, and neither one as far as I can tell gives up anything to the other in this arena.
Second critical area: Increases max effective ranges, and ability to engage targets with precise/accurate fire in difficult conditions or at intermediate to longer ranges.
I used two main things to evaluate, compare, and ultimately formulate the max effective ranges. Firstly, I used my own extensive trigger time while shooting these rifles at long ranges to determine, and then validate true max effective ranges....i.e. real world evidence. Over the last year or two I've become very confident in exactly what these rifles will, and won't do in terms of long ranges. The max effective ranges for each rifle I came to were based on reliability, and repeatability....and NOT a measure of lucky hits, random successes, or the all time best.
Secondly, I created, and analyzed the ballistic charts for each rifle using it's actual military match grade ammo...i.e. theoretical evidence. The charts were created using actual MV that I collected. Outside of lots of time behind these rifles at long ranges, these charts if examined closely should give one the next best tool in order to evaluate which Recce in question will yield the longest max effective ranges, and which one will do so with significantly increased lethality.
Notes on the ballistic charts below:
The most important/informational part in the charts below is the windage values for the purposes of this discussion. Be sure to study the amounts of windage at the various distance intervals along the 1000yd chart. After the windage, the next most relevant and informative data in the charts would be observing the actual velocities of the rounds throughout the 1000yd chart. Even more specifically, pay attention to the velocities of the rounds when traveling from 600-1000yds. Why is that info important for this discussion?......because we're concerned with the regions at which our rounds enter transonic flight, and bullet stability becomes a concern for particular projectiles. Luckily both the 77gr. SMK, and the 175gr. SMK aren't known to suffer major stability issues when going transonic unlike the 168gr. SMK for example. The charts will reflect that the MWS Recce using M118LR will remain barely supersonic for the entire 1000yds, whereas then you'll note that the MRP Recce using MK262 Mod1 starts to enter transonic flight sometime shortly past 800yds.
That windage difference between the two plays largely into my belief that the .223 Recce is a reliable 800yd rifle, whereas the .308 Recce is a reliable 1000yd rifle. I've had some limited success with the .223 Recce and SPR rifles at 1k, however there is very little rhyme or reason to it. On the other hand, the .308 Recce in a skilled shooter's hands is easily a very consistent 1K capable rifle. Once you get to 600yds or so with both these rifles, it's crystal clear how much easier it is to land hits with a .308 vs. .223.
In short, the .308 Recce will generally yield a 200-300yd increase in effective range over it's little brother, and that alone makes most of the .308/7.62 case in my book.
Ballistic charts:
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC05151-2-1.jpg
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC05155-2-1.jpg
Third critical area...portability: both rifles maintain incredibly portable configurations considering the range and precision abilities that are built into them.
The .223 Recce is extremely handy and portable I've found, but so is the .308 Recce. Ultimately it comes down to whether the end user is willing to trade roughly 1-1.75lbs in weight for the ability to increase max effective range out to 1k, as well as exponentially increase the actual lethality and knock down punch behind the rounds fired. Personally, I'll take that trade 10/10 times. I've found that either one of these rifles is almost as easily humped as the other, and the big difference lies b/t the shoot-ability of the .223 vs. .308..i.e. recoil, and loudness, rather than an extra pound here and there.
Here are the measurements on these rifles when keeping variables to a very minimum. Each rifle was recorded with two weights....1. the weight w/o the optic, bipod, or mag., and 2. The weight of the rifle fully configured with mag (both rifles were weighed with the same kit...i.e. optic, and bipod).
MRP Recce .223:
1.) 7.60 lbs
2.) 9.86 lbs
OAL: 33"
MWS Recce .308:
1.) 9.51 lbs
2.) 11.98 lbs
OAL: 34"
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC05207-1.jpg
I'll conclude my 7.62/.308 case with some strong evidence from the wild......dare I say real Recce rifles in combat:eek:;)
LMT L129A1s with 16" SST barrels and magnified optics....
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=160154&d=1311373154
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/436/58361897031228eec9e9b.jpg
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/7551/5405217670855ca90f88b.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y160/Larrym84/e85a7872.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/British%20Army%20-%202/682e6c08.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/British%20Army%20-%202/71686fb4.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/British%20Army%20-%202/6c27a634.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/British%20Forces%20-%20Navy%20and%20Air%20Force/299cf756.jpg
HK 417s with 16" barrels and magnified optics...
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Australian%20Defence%20Force%202/9a5f4121.jpg
http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Equipment-and-clothing/Small-Arms/~/media/Images/Our%20work/Equipment%20and%20clothing/Small%20Arms/HK417_460x306px.ashx
http://uppix.net/5/2/2/de94a48c114483cda28bb39679a3a.png
Scar 17s with 16" barrels and magnified optics...
http://dmn.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Mk-17-SCAR-Web-lr1.jpg
http://images-kitup.military.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/SCAR-problems-in-the-field.jpg
http://www.americanspecialops.com/images/photos/special-forces/special-forces-scar.jpg
I like the recce concept. Still trying to save up enough to either buy a complete recce upper in 5.56 or wait longer to get an LMT MWS 308. The 308 is very appealing.
Wait for the LMT MWS, you will not be disappointed. Meanwhile, look up Tridents videos on long range MWS fun.
I agree with pretty much everything Trident. There's some overlap with the DMR thread in this discussion, so I'll just reiterate and repost some of the things I wrote in that thread, specifically things related to the advantages of a 16'' 7.62 gas gun.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the first I'm seeing this post. I'm going to briefly touch on one of the original issues....5.56 vs 7.62 for a DMR.
As Sniper Section Leader, I was heavily involved in TTP development as it relates to SDM's throughout the unit at large. Official doctrine is lacking, and units are thinking out of the FM 7-8 box as they should be.
It needs to be 7.62 and here is why (bear with me as I arrive at my point):
The vast majority of kinetic operations carried about by infantry in the contemporary operating environment (COE) are kill / capture missions. At its basic level the formula is simple....support by fire and assault.
Current edit: this is not really true anymore as far a Kill/Capture being an everyday infantry task, but the point still stands.
Keep in mind that due to Afghanistan's extreme terrain, SBF positions are often further away from the elements they are tasked with supporting than is ideal. It is not uncommon for the SBF to be 600-800 Meters from the target house and even further from the Assault element at the beginning of their movement. Yet the SBF is still fully expected to support them.
SDM's are rightly being placed solely on support by fire lines, and here is why. In Afghanistan, assaulting elements are often in small arms contact during movement to the target house. Effective support by fire is absolutely critical for their success and safety. Current doctrine dictates that supporting fires from M240's and MK48's must be kept at least 15 degrees ahead of assaulting elements when the guns are tripod mounted. You're looking at double that on bipods.
So, the machine guns are often forced to completely lift fire to prevent fratricide, even as assaulting elements are still in contact and have to move considerable distances under fire with no support from machine guns. Sure, those elements have organic MK46's, but what happens when they are effectively suppressed? This issue is exacerbated exponentially with an increase in range due to the angular nature of the surface danger zone standard.
Enter the SDM. At no time does the SDM have to lift fire. Under direction of the SBF senior leader, an SDM may continue to engage point targets on the objective in close proximity to the assaulters. They may even continue to engage the upper floors of a building as friendly elements are breaching at ground level. The expansion of a machine gun's cone of fire makes this relatively unsafe at 700-800M.
With a 5.56 DMR, this capability is severely degraded at extended range. When the 7.62 MG's have to go silent, what will replace them? Without a 7.62 DMR, the answer is nothing. No-go.
Lastly, the KAC SR-25 EMC in 7.62MM with a 16'' barrel and a NF 2.5-10 would be about as ideal a DMR platform as one can imagine. The M14 EBR's are having a lot of issues and are not well liked by anybody that I know. Yet the capability mentioned above that it brings to organic infantry platoons cannot be overstated. Until the M14 is replaced (the sooner the better), it will continue to fill an important role in daily combat operations.
Current edit: we were talking about M110 carbines in that thread and my KAC recommendation mostly hinged on that possibility. It's the characteristics of the rifle that matter in this discussion (16'' and 7.62). LMT, KAC, and others all offer viable options. Also, a NF 2.5-10 is probably not the BEST choice either. Not sure what exactly I was thinking when I wrote that, but it probably came out of a sense of realism about what we could possibly end up with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The base role for the Recce was/is to give eyes-on-target Sniper-Observer teams the ability to get close while providing a more capable/longer 5.56 reach and an emergency assault and/or break contact capability. The S/O role does not equate to a GP Forces Sniper or DM.
TTP-wise at the time (going back to the mid-late 80s) the S/Os are in-close while you have a security force controlling an outer perimeter and avenues of approach. A 14.5 Colt 723/ pre-M4 carbine did not give the same capability as a precise/slow bolt gun, an M25, or first-generation SR25, and was marginal for a break-contact capability (even with a short-barrel M203)..
The niche today would be perfectly filled by a mid-length 5.56, a KAC EMC, or an AR-10T Carbine. The LMT fits the niche while adding a little weight for the interchangeable barrel capability (nice to have/mission-enhancing but not mission essential). A well-worked / no malfunctions / stoppages DPMS AP4 Carbine would also fit the size/weight niche.
I have no experience with the SCAR-Heavy but there seem to be both fans and detractors for that weapon as well.
Good write up Trident.
Im really starting to come around to the SDM using a 7.62 rifle rather than a 5.56.
When I was a SDM in 05 I carried a modified M16A4 with an ACOG on top and fed it M262. For my purpose it was great. However from reading on here, especially a0cake's posts, it seems the SDM role has changed since I was one.
When I was one I was still an active member of my fire team. I still had to clear houses and other CQB activities. Then when we stopped I would provide long range security, ususally with a SAW gunner nearby. There were only a few instances where I was used as overwatch for other elements. But then again my AO in Iraq was far more rocketing and IEDs than gunfights so we never really got a good hands on feel of how the SDM should be deployed.
Now they seem to be used as more of a fire support element where I think they belong. In that situation, coupled with the great success we are seeing with 16 inch AR10s, the 7.62 really shines.
With the Army looking seriously at a more compact M110 setup, I think the concept of a precision 5.56 rifle (Recce, Mk12, SDMR, SAMR) might wind up being an orphan of sorts.
Given the requirement among the Marine Corps for magazine commonality while maintaining some extended precision point fire, the Mk12 made some sense, but a good optic was the most useful part of that equation to us, followed by the OPS 12th can (mostly for dogs) on patrol. We were in a uniquely SDM friendly environment with terrain features that worked well for overwatch, and a distinct need for Target PID and CWIED spotting, so it worked.
Once past that range, the only assets we had were M40's and M82's for point fire - same issue with the M240's being a fratricide risk, and very few had the high powered ACOG to really help either.
As for the enhanced capability on the 5.56 side, even our M16A4's with RCO and GripPod were pretty capable at range - shrink those to 16" and float them it's still just fine, and the limitation is still the shooter and ammunition. Even a simple fixed zoom optic and a relatively light grippod is enough to make damn solid hits at half a click.
Another odd thing I kept seeing in requirements is automatic fire desired in the Mk12 and SAM-R. I know admittedly very little on the SOF side where the Mk12 originated, but high cadence aimed fire still strikes me as more valuable.
IF a 16" 7.62 precision platform with a 2.5-10x NXS or 3-18x Mk6 becomes available in squad deployable numbers, and an enhanced M4 with FF handguard becomes common, I think the 5.56 precision rifle will be forced into an even smaller niche.
What is everyones opinion on a rifle like the PredatAR being used as a SPR? From what I have read and discussed with owners is that its pretty darn accurate and even when the light barrel heats up its a 1.5 MOA rifle.
Is the lighter weight and mobility worth the trade off if accuracy drops a little with sustained fire? I know a0cake has talked of prolonged engagements using a Mk12.
Even though the S/A precision sub forum hardly sees any traffic at all, the opinions of the major contributors in it are extremely knowledgeable. The best part is that these folks have so much real world end user feedback/opinion to share with us all, and I've grown to really appreciate that aspect now of this sub forum. So thanks for some great replies guys, I'd enjoy seeing a bunch more:)
RE: PredatAR....personally I wouldn't run anything less than a medium contoured barrel on any precision AR of mine. Once I acquire my said dope for the target and practice the solution for a few rounds, I let em fly....:cool:
So here is my question...in a MOUT setting, would the 5.56 be the preferred platform since it is more "shootable" AND the lanes of fire are limited enough to make the extended ranges a moot point?
(And as far as extended ranges are concerned, I realize that you would be able to extend the range, based on the vantage point, but lets assume a city setting where all the buildings are about the same height...or maybe that wouldn't even matter for my question above?)
Follow on question: If the 5.56 "RECCE" is the chosen platform, would the optic remain the same (around 10X on the high side)? Or would a 1-4X be preferred?
So here is my question...in a MOUT setting, would the 5.56 be the preferred platform since it is more "shootable" AND the lanes of fire are limited enough to make the extended ranges a moot point?
(And as far as extended ranges are concerned, I realize that you would be able to extend the range, based on the vantage point, but lets assume a city setting where all the buildings are about the same height...or maybe that wouldn't even matter for my question above?)
Follow on question: If the 5.56 "RECCE" is the chosen platform, would the optic remain the same (around 10X on the high side)? Or would a 1-4X be preferred?
Considering that ELCAN Spectre DR 1-4's, 1.5-6's, ACOG'S, and soon the Squad Common Optic (probably going to wind up a 1-6 or 1-8) are all readily available to anyone who wants one on their M4, there is no point in adding 1.5'' in barrel length, the same kind of optics, and calling it something else. More accurate ammunition for the M4's would provide 99% of the capability.
It's about echelons of capability. An accurized 5.56 platform is all well and good (and can be used with great results), but if you want to elevate capability by an order of magnitude, a 7.62 platform is where you'll make your money.
Honestly your first question, "would 5.56 be preferred in a MOUT setting" is odd to me. Obviously 5.56 is preferred if you have to go house to house. But not everybody in the unit can have the weapon that is most advantageous for every setting. There needs to be a wide range of capabilities, from individual weapons to crew served weapons. Proper planning based on METT-TC will allow for the most advantageous distribution of various weapons systems in the ground tactical plan / scheme of maneuver. Support / Assault teams etc. etc etc. I don't think nerfing the precision rifle capability by making it a 5.56 to suit a MOUT setting, at the expense of the advantages that a DM can provide at intermediate and long range is wise. There are plenty of M4's on the ground.
Considering that ELCAN Spectre DR 1-4's, 1.5-6's, ACOG'S, and soon the Squad Common Optic (probably going to wind up a 1-6 or 1-8) are all readily available to anyone who wants one on their M4, there is no point in adding 1.5'' in barrel length, the same kind of optics, and calling it something else. More accurate ammunition for the M4's would provide 99% of the capability.
It's about echelons of capability. An accurized 5.56 platform is all well and good (and can be used with great results), but if you want to elevate capability by an order of magnitude, a 7.62 platform is where you'll make your money.
Honestly your first question, "would 5.56 be preferred in a MOUT setting" is odd to me. Obviously 5.56 is preferred if you have to go house to house. But not everybody in the unit can have the weapon that is most advantageous for every setting. There needs to be a wide range of capabilities, from individual weapons to crew served weapons. Proper planning based on METT-TC will allow for the most advantageous distribution of various weapons systems in the ground tactical plan / scheme of maneuver. Support / Assault teams etc. etc etc. I don't think nerfing the precision rifle capability by making it a 5.56 to suit a MOUT setting, at the expense of the advantages that a DM can provide at intermediate and long range is wise. There are plenty of M4's on the ground.
Yes, I see what you're saying...
And my first question actually wasn't posed the way I had it in my mind...I was actually asking about an overwatch type of role in urban terrain...not necessarily kicking in doors, running up to the second story, and having to take a mid/long range shot...I was thinking static position from an overwatch location.
Yes, I see what you're saying...
And my first question actually wasn't posed the way I had it in my mind...I was actually asking about an overwatch type of role in urban terrain...not necessarily kicking in doors, running up to the second story, and having to take a mid/long range shot...I was thinking static position from an overwatch location.
Gotchya. If we cut away all the other variables and requirements and imagine for the sake of discussion that the only task which must be performed is overwatch from a static position, then I see no use for a 5.56 rifle at all. I just don't see any scenario where I'm leaning into the rooftop wall of a house providing overwatch and a 5.56 can do something the 7.62 can't. But I can sure imagine the opposite.
With a Squad Common Optic on a spotter/radioman role with the static overwatch, going with 7.62 is almost automatic if available. Keeping the support/security element (which will include these) in supporting and overwatch role in MOUT seems intuitive enough for me, but with a shorter (16" 7.62 with collapsing stock, offset irons/T-1) SDMR rifle it's no longer such a handicap.
Beyond that, penetration>>volume of fire for a precision weapon system in my experience, yet another point to the 7.62 for this role. Even in built up areas with limited lanes of fire, the odds of tangos using thin/intermediate cover aren't too bad, so while I can imagine a case where a Recce/SPR in 5.56 could shine, an M110C/417C in 7.62 isn't far behind, and provides a much bigger capability set outside those.
If an M240 and M110C is a squad level asset, I think that's an adequate force multiplier (based on my experience with corps 13-16 man augmented squads). Since the majority of the direct fire weapon platforms (M4; M249, M27) in the squad are already in the assault and support elements, that's more than enough. With a solid division of responsibilities, the SDMR in a larger caliber shines in most situations.
Moving to smaller unit, and civvy oriented stuff, then you're looking at the 7.62 recce as a more significant tradeoff, where for smaller units the added capability of the 7.62 may not be worth the tradeoff in effectiveness closer. In open terrain, 7.62 all day. Built up areas, I'm at a loss.
A 16-inch 7.62 carbine is a natural for at least one foot-maneuvering squad dogface. He can be an assaulter and do his jack-of-all-trades infantry mission without being restricted to an overwatch role.
Once the first incoming shot hits one of your Joes there are never enough troops in a squad, period.
If every time one of your boys squeezes his trigger a jackass dies the arguments of caliber and configuration become moot.
Indoors 7.62 is brutal noisy but effective as hell. Advantage 5.56 for recoil follow-up and control.
wild_wild_wes
05-06-12, 00:52
I shall respectfully disagree with the OP. I don't see a need for an accurized 16" .308 AR. I think a rack-grade carbine with the addition of a good optic can fulfill the Recce role. The new SEAL "Recce" rifle is in fact nothing more than the SCAR-L. That's a 5.56 rifle with a 14.5" barrel.
There is something to say about Sinister's point though:
"A 16-inch 7.62 carbine is a natural for at least one foot-maneuvering squad dogface. He can be an assaulter and do his jack-of-all-trades infantry mission without being restricted to an overwatch role."
The standard SCAR-H with 16" barrel and high-power optic is already being used in the "precision" role:
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/227/mk20.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/United%20States%20Spec%20Ops/08aa0fee.jpg
http://h9.abload.de/img/seal3cgl6.png
I started a discussion about this in this thread:
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=101613
An educated dissenting opinion in my book is just as valuable as a confirmatory one in terms of bettering the overall discussion:)
I did let the monkey outta the box though already when I introduced the box of legos into this discussion....something dies inside of me every time I combine the words Recce, and SCAR;)
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC05736.jpg
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC05741.jpg
I agree with wes that a rack grade .308 carbine with a precision optic and good match ammunition can be more than adequate, but I would contend that the funds for the latter two parts being available are an artifact of GWOT, and that in the upcoming austere DoD, we'll be back to program of record weapon systems, so a dedicated 'precision' variant that has clip-on NV equipment, bipods, ballistics software; logistics support for parts, maintenance, and match ammo; and a training program behind it to make the important part of the DM equation effective will be a priority, or else the next conflict, the big army will be 'discovering' that all these ideas and hardware are requisite for the job.
wild_wild_wes
05-08-12, 10:00
Well Mr. Llama, if the past is any guide, the post-conflict drawdown will mean that the whole issue of specialized weapons will be dropped. The existance of SOCOM however might mean that the knowledge will hopefully not be lost, and that the evolution and perfection of small numbers of evolved weapons will continue.
This rifle looks really interesting too.
http://soldiersystems.net/2012/05/12/texas-ranger-7-62-predatar-from-larue/
I'm a big fan of the 16" 762 NATO guns, especially as the SDM type of gun.
However I will reiterate the penalty Sinister Dave noted above.
In a house the concusion is brutal, and the size and speed is a hinderance.
Numerically - my SR weights around 12lbs with glass, light, PEQ etc.
My 5.56mm gun weights a lot less (I'm not doing apples in accessories here as I'm a beleiver in the Arms Room concept, and my 5.56mm gun is kitted out for shorter ranges).
Last weekend I shot our local 2 gun Match with my SR, I reshot some stages later with my 5.56mm gun, as I was just plain curious what sort of time penalty I was taking.
I shot Stage 4 "Hostage" and came in 10th
Kevin B 00:00:38.22
in that stage - 0 point down
I reshot with my 5.56mm gun - and was in 23.36 - which would have put my in first by 7 sec and some small change (0 points down).
Granted I had shot the course prior so I knew what it was probably shaved a few seconds - and I was running a T-1 versus the Leupy 1-8 on my SR, and my 5.56mm gun has no PEQ or light.
My reloads (it was a rifle only stage) are slower with the SR - (weight and size penalties again).
It was a start with 10rds to force a reload drill. Also we do not give a major/minor break to the 7.62mm guns so I shot 2rds a piece to each system.
Full disclosure - I have our MAMS muzzle break on my SR - so a lot less recoil and my splits are quite quick - but more concusion. A2 FH on my 5.56mm gun.
In all reality -- I'm probably taking a 50% speed penalty on my SR over my M4gery - which if it was kitted out similarily would slow me a bit more. However I'm gaining about 500m more in usable range between the platform setups I have. I plan on running an apples/apples configue on the clock later this month.
Kev Thanks!
Great first hand perspective.
I ran a 762 PredatAR in training the other day with A2 flashhider and it was to say the least a learning experience. I had shot OBRs at distance from prone and thought I had the recoil impulse figured out, but doing CQC I discovered I do not have the AR 762 recoil impulse figured out:eek: I still shoot my FAL much better, but will keep working with the 762 AR.
Look forward to more info from you in this.
I am not quite sure if this fits the roll of RECCE but this is the last evolution of my patrol rifle. Aside from the variable optic and the match grade barrel, this fits all of Trident's noted requirements. The barrel is a CHF barrel and is quite capable of 1MOA. I use the T-1 but I can make hits all day long at 220 yards which is far more than I will ever engage someone in my AO. It is a bit heavier than most of the other patrol rifles but it is also a lot more controllable, recoil wise than the lighter rifles. The Vltor VIS system is as rugged as it is beautiful and it is very nicely balanced. The AAC Mini4 makes the rifle hearing safe for indoor and out door use and only adds a couple inches.
http://i1014.photobucket.com/albums/af269/CoryCop25/ARs/e04e820e.jpg
wild_wild_wes
01-06-13, 11:59
If the SEALs are using a scoped 417 as the new "recce", then there is perhaps the need for a precision 5.56 rifle, for certain applications.
The fact that the 417 is performing this role with a chromed 14.5" barrel is interesting to me...
If the SEALs are using a scoped 417 as the new "recce", then there is perhaps the need for a precision 5.56 rifle, for certain applications.
The fact that the 417 is performing this role with a chromed 14.5" barrel is interesting to me...
I didnt know that the SEALs were using 417s? I thought that they were using scoped Mk17s for the "Recce" or DMR role. Interesting either way.
wild_wild_wes
01-06-13, 16:06
Oops, I meant 416. The 5.56 version.
Oops, I meant 416. The 5.56 version.
Gotcha!
There is so much information in these threads. I just wanted to thank the members that contribute the most to these discussions. I think trident said it. There are not many regular contributors, but the one that do make this sub forum one of the most informative.
I have always loved the reece, and the idea of a precision 16. This thread, and a couple others by trident have greatly influenced some of my buying decisions after seeing what is truly possible with the 16" precision rifle whether it be 556 or 762.
I do not have much to contribute, but i just wanted to thank you guys for all the great information.
Based to some extent on what I learned from you chaps on this sub forum, I chose to set mine up as a compromise of a compromise: 17in Krieger in 5.56. It's a 9.5lb setup.
Each time I contemplate going to 7.62 I am daunted by the weight, logistics and expense. The fact that I have 1k rds of 77gr match grade ammo makes it difficult to face the cost and availability challenges of acquiring a new caliber. Starting from scratch, and in less complicated times, I may have gone the other direction. Additionally, the rifle is quite manageable and could serve double duty, either with an offset T-1 or a complete optics swap.
http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii123/geohans/IMG_0059-1_zps787c8cbe.jpg
Sighting in in a crosswind at 200yds:http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii123/geohans/2012-12-31063252_zps534b9f80.jpg
Thanks to those of you who helped, however unwittingly.
wild_wild_wes
01-10-13, 08:06
How much glass is too much for this class of weapon?
I'm going to do a 16" .308, and was going to use the same optic as geohans, but am also considering a scope in the 5-20X range.
Magnification is really a function of mission requirement, cost, weight, and bulk.
The Marines did some excellent research and produced an "X-File" (Experimentation report) based on exercises they conducted at Quantico and in Guam. They used the Leupold TS-30A2, ACOGs, and some other scopes and found that with the variables (2.5-8X, 3-9X) at the top end they could positively identify bad guys or the presence of small arms farther away and faster than guys with minimal magnification (like with an ACOG or Short Dot).
Going bigger than a 2-8X or 3-9X (typically a Leupold or example Nightforce 2-10X32) and you start talking weight issues and heading into sniper (vice sharpshooter) role. Same gear, different role, and the temptation for commanders to pluck guys and fire teams away and put them where they kinda-sorta fit, i.e. tasking maneuver rifle squads into specific hunter-killer roles. Not quite patrolling, and not quite in a support element role.
9 or 10X will get you to 1,000, while a 3-20 can give you precision aiming for smaller targets likje groundhogs to prairie dogs. A 10X may have pretty fat/thick crosshairs for your long-distance engagements.
wild_wild_wes
01-10-13, 14:28
Is a 1-6X a good fit for the DM role then? Or is 6 not enough top-end magnification?
Is a 1-6X a good fit for the DM role then? Or is 6 not enough top-end magnification?
Just to throw another option out there, what about a 2.5-10 with offset irons? Or if the cost isn't a concern, offset micro?
Sinister, any opinions on the above?
A 1-8X (like the Leupold CQBSS) would be nice, but way pricey.
My personal choice on a 22-inch 10T is a Leupold 3.5-10X M3LR, and on the 16-inch the Leupold TS-30A2 (3-9X). Both are first focal plane and have quick elevation turrets (or you can use your holdoffs).
I think Barry Dueck's offset irons are a solid and sturdy (again pricey) option for close-in iron sight requirement while giving you some magnification for distance and positive ID. Another sturdy, fast, and reasonable option is the original JP sight:
http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/primary/191/191788.jpg
An offset micro would be nice if your wallet or unit budget can swing it. The problem with a micro or other panoramic red dot (besides batteries, which are becoming less of a problem with modern circuitry) is rain, snow, dust, or mud on the glass (especially towards dusk).
RamadiDoorkicker
01-10-13, 15:42
After a tour in Ramadi as a SDM in a forward infantry unit, I have a few "opinions" on the RECCE rifle's needs and need-not's.
1. The need for a RECCE specific rifle is huge. I was forced to carry my M4 with combat loadout AND an M21 with loadout because the optic selection on the M21 was limited to the optics traditionally used by our sniper section. It was virtually impossible to acquire a target under 150 meters in the city with a high magnification scope. Thus forcing me to carry the M4 with the M21 slung. All this did was get hung up on debri and smack the back of my legs when moving under contact.
2. The caliber of the rifle is dependent on the environment you will be performing you missions in. A rifle of higher caliber is almost required in an area such as Afghanistan where common engagement distances push well beyond the maximum effective range for 5.56 rifles. However, the same isn't true in environments that are primarily urban (Iraq) or wooded that drastically limit the range of your typical engagements which is dictated by the distance you can effectively set in to overwatch your manuevering element.
3. Magazine capacity is also a critical factor. I want that extra ten rounds when I can get it. Combat is messy. You aren't going to be able to keep an accurate round count when yelling commands to your squad, contact descriptions, and answering the company commander that won't stay off the radio. If I can stay in the fight 33% longer before being forced to reload, I will take it. Especially when your typical reaction to contact finds you simply laying down a barrage of suppressive fire to gain superiority before reorganizing and assaulting thru the objective.
End Opinion: there is not one caliber better than the other. It is mission dependent. This is why most of our units in SOCOM have several different gear loadouts for their different missions and no 2 operators choose the same loadout for the same mission!
Like everything, it depends. Caliber, barrel length, scope, irons, trigger, ammuniton, etc, etc...
http://cdn.magpul.com/images/uploads/204_1112_popup.jpg
Some don't like windows, however I personally enjoy them on precision ARs...where one actually looks to see how many rounds left, or how many rounds have been shot into a group or string.
This will certainly bridge the gap for those who are reluctant to only sport 20rds as well.
I really am looking forward to these mags, and I have confidence we will see these mags in the future in at least pro gun States.
Like the 25rds PMAGS... Need to get a rifle that takes 308 PMAGs when this madness hopefully dies down...
http://cdn.magpul.com/images/uploads/204_1112_popup.jpg
Some don't like windows, however I personally enjoy them on precision ARs...where one actually looks to see how many rounds left, or how many rounds have been shot into a group or string.
This will certainly bridge the gap for those who are reluctant to only sport 20rds as well.
I really am looking forward to these mags, and I have confidence we will see these mags in the future in at least pro gun States.
I sure hope so.
I'll be jumping on some as soon as I see any, even if it's at one of the scalpers.
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DFECecWuuc-A&sa=U&ei=v7f9UNvmB4TeigKP_ICICQ&ved=0CCsQtwIwAA&sig2=RLGrDpTzhYfjxLqwVqtqjw&usg=AFQjCNG1mLr4NlMyrEYss_euyImqgw6L4g
Seems there's a few new options. This looks light. Don't know about the final accuracy reports I couldn't tell what the groups were on that test target.
wild_wild_wes
01-26-13, 22:04
Hey Trident here's my 7.62 Recce
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k132/pseudonominus/UB71_zpse6d9416e.jpg
Armalite upper
Noveske lower
Rainier UltraMatch 16" barrel
DD 12" Lite handguard
Nightforce 2.5-10X32 mildot in LT104 mount
Aimpoint T1 in offset DD mount
Gieselle SSA trigger
Rainier Raptor charging handle
Weight without bipod: 11 lbs. 7 oz.
Add exactly one pound for bipod & mount
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k132/pseudonominus/UB72_zps5bd3a0e7.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k132/pseudonominus/UB73_zpsf86a6aca.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k132/pseudonominus/UB74_zps28ae2816.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k132/pseudonominus/UB75_zpse0351181.jpg
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k132/pseudonominus/UB76_zps0f883225.jpg
Wes, how fast are you with that offset T-1? Ever timed yourself for splits against your 5.56 times?
Also, did it take awhile to get it running, or was it good as soon as you turned the last screwdriver?
wild_wild_wes
01-26-13, 22:24
I just finished building the lower. The upper came from Rainiers on Thursday. So I haven't had the opportunity to take it shooting yet.
Really great job brother....and that's textbook stuff in terms of the configuration for at least my view of a Recce..specifically the 7.62 variant.
Look forward to hearing your impressions and results in the future if you have the time to keep us updated on it.
In a real world threat environment, I'm not sure there is a better compliment to a Recce rifle than the T-1 offset at 1oclock...specifically for my tastes in a LT-724 mount. It feels actually quite natural to transition or slightly cant the rifle to bring up the secondary, and by extension easy to use with some practice.
http://i53.tinypic.com/28s22au.jpg
RamadiDoorkicker
01-27-13, 07:06
I am not quite sure if this fits the roll of RECCE but this is the last evolution of my patrol rifle. Aside from the variable optic and the match grade barrel, this fits all of Trident's noted requirements. T
While this is a great weapon, a magnified optic is one of the key features that would allow a weapon to be considered "RECCE." As Trident and the others have pointed out, the primary mission for a RECCE rifle is support and engagement at extended distances. This doesn't mean you have to have a scope capable of shooting the cow as it jumps the moon, but a micro-dot wont work. A great option to consider is to place your micro at a 45 degree and use it for close work...
wild_wild_wes
01-27-13, 08:11
"Support and engagement at extended distances". Put in that language, it would seem that includes both precision and volume fires. Most people skew their Recces to precision specialization. In terms of volume fires, 5.56 would have the advantage over 7.62.
It's wild to see how great minds think a like. Not saying I have a great mind... Just that all you guys had this idea that's been plaguing me in the midst of this gun crazed draught ordeal we find ourselves in. I chose to build up a "Recce" gun for a deployment and found just how awesome it was. Basicly I built a Noveske 16" light recce barreled M4 with the VTAC forend and added a Trijicon 1-4x scope, the best that offered day and night capability and true 1-4x capability (not rich enough for a CQBSS just yet). But most recent I've been thinking the 16-18" .308 would be the heat! I got my hands on Pmags, and a .308 break I was wanting amidst this rediculousness, but I've still not got the rest of it yet. I'd like to go the JP route on the upper and go Pmags comparable lower. Otherwise my goal is to keep the weight down to a minimum and the groups nice and tight.
Honestly when you think about the money spent on a bold gun the numbers are in the favor of this gun even given a slight higher cost initially. Glass you'll buy regardless, and any kind of bolt gun you'll end up puting in a chassis or stock and rebarreling. By that time you've spent what a GOOD sub MOA gas gun would cost ya.
Awesome thread! Thanks for the comparison.
wild_wild_wes
03-03-13, 00:54
I came to the same conclusion, Matman. Add up up all the compnents for a bolt gun, and you can do an AR10 instead...which has the charming quality of being semi-auto!
But I think you can ditch your muzzle brake; it's not needed IMHO, and will make your future build more pleasant to fire.
I came to the same conclusion, Matman. Add up up all the compnents for a bolt gun, and you can do an AR10 instead...which has the charming quality of being semi-auto!
But I think you can ditch your muzzle brake; it's not needed IMHO, and will make your future build more pleasant to fire.
The brake helps the volume fire aspect of a recce, especially on a 308.
But I think you can ditch your muzzle brake; it's not needed IMHO, and will make your future build more pleasant to fire.
May not be needed, but for my 16" 7.62 build I chose the Surefire SFMB-762 SOCOM brake (http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/barrel-parts/muzzle-brakes/socom-muzzle-brakes-prod55270.aspx). I prefer to keep the weapon as steady as possible for the followup shot(s) and I'm planning to get the can for it down the road.
My issued SR-25 has the 30cal version of the Triple Tap. They brake is absolutely amazing but I'm not going to spend that much on a brake for a personal gun (even if one could find one available).
At this time, early 2013 best o breed consist of
16" 7.62 gas gun, light as possible, 1-1.5moa (better recoil characteristics than piston guns)
3-18 compact luepy tremor2
T-1 @ 45degrees with the light svelte KAC mount
A muzzle brake/device that permits self spotting
This get you 0-1200m fast
And if you think the old KAC 7.62 triple tap was good, the new KAC MAMs crushes it.
bleaman225
03-03-13, 21:25
At this time, early 2013 best o breed consist of
16" 7.62 gas gun, light as possible, 1-1.5moa (better recoil characteristics than piston guns) - check
3-18 compact luepy tremor2 - check but with the H58 reticle
T-1 @ 45degrees with the light svelte KAC mount - Dueck Defense offset irons, kind of check
A muzzle brake/device that permits self spotting - now that my MWS sports a SF Socom brake, I'll have another check
This get you 0-1200m fast
And if you think the old KAC 7.62 triple tap was good, the new KAC MAMs crushes it.
Other than lightweight, I think I have most of those bases covered.
http://i630.photobucket.com/albums/uu29/benleaman/Permanent/IMG_2980.jpg
I really appreciate this discussion.
One question--are there any considerations that come into play here for twist rate given the 16" barrel instead of 18-20"? I know KAC is currently at 1:11 with the SR-25s. Wondering if that is the sweat spot for this type of build and if there are any thoughts of using 1:10 in this application.
wild_wild_wes
03-04-13, 21:32
At this time, early 2013 best o breed consist of
...
3-18 compact luepy tremor2
...
3-18? For a Recce?
3-18? For a Recce?
It does seem like a bit much, but at least it has a 3x low end.
One of the understood aspects here that's paramount to the case for a .308 Recce is the fact that it increases your max effective ranges out to and potentially past 1k.
Many people wrongly believe you need telescopes to put effective fire on torso sized targets @ 1k..just like you need 20-24" barrels, however that said, you still do need more than your typical 1-4/6x type optic for reliable, repeatable success at these ELR distances.
I consider 10x to be the true minimum power required for a 1k capable Recce.
So now it becomes a true balancing act....weight/size : performance/magnification ratio. How much are you willing to sacrifice in terms of scope profile size, and weight in order to gain an optic powerful enough for the job at hand. Note that everyone is a bit different, some like loads of magnification on a target....some like as little as possible. There isn't a perfect one size fits all magnification for this configuration.
When analyzing my own recce glass needs, I found that the nxsc 2.5-10x24 offered me by far and away the best weight/size : performance/magnification ratio.
Leupy saved it's ship imho with the MK6 3-18x. Nothing they have done has shown a pulse in many years, and they failed to innovate or even listen to their end users...however something radically changed with regards to their MK6 model.
It's a true LR capable optic....not just some low variable powered optic half assing @ 1k.
I would put it at my # 3 position for perferred Recce optics....
1. NXSc 2.5-10x24 mil/mil z-stop
17 oz / 9.9"
2. March Tactical 1-10x24 Illuminated MTR-2 / Mil z-stop
18.7 oz / 10.4"
3. MK6 3-18x44 mil/mil z-stop
23.6 oz / 11.9"
4. NXSc 2.5-10x32 mil/mil z-stop
19 oz / 12"
5. NXS F1 3.5-15x50 mil/mil z-stop
30 oz / 14.8"
wild_wild_wes
03-05-13, 09:26
As always, geat post, Trident.
RamadiDoorkicker
03-05-13, 09:35
When designing your RECCE, the most important thing isn't your optic, your caliber, or your barrel length. It is analyzing you Area of Operation! A 1000 yard gun isn't worth a shit in an environment that doesn't offer a shot over 500. And the opposite is true. Just take the posts here as guides and recommendations and not gospel. :smile:
Not noted is the Luepy mk6 is FFP / F1 whatever you want to call it, and available with Horus options. So one can shoot 0-1200 w/o spinning dials, fast. One can shoot 500m in 20mph Left full value, turn 180 and shoot 1200m in 30mph Right full value.. and hit.
I have one of the handful of individual purchase NF 2.5-10x24 hash NP-R2, illuminated, original "spec-war" marked optic. It is excellent glass for the size and weight. Probably the best.
trident,
USO has 2 interesting scopes that would fit the purpose. one is their "Dual focal plane" 1-6x and the other is their new 1-8x that has a mil hash reticle in the FFP and a push button daylight bright red dot.
http://www.usoptics.com/Optics/sr-8s.html
haven't put my hands on the new one yet, but that's probably what i'm going to order later this year
innercityguy
12-30-14, 01:35
Best thread on the web for recce talk..
Dano, no kidding! lot of cool stuff coming out right now.
fwiw, an update... this is the optic i mentioned 2 posts back, which was 2 years ago, though the rifle isn't exactly 'recce'
http://precisionmultigun.com/pics/aratacs7.jpg
What appears to be another example of this concept perfected by enhancing it's reach, and ballistics with .308/7.62:
Green Beret in A-stan circa 2017-2018 using what to my naked eyes is a Noveske N6 16" switchblock complete rifle with a Leupy MK 6 mounted in a MK 6 20 MOA mount. Has a secondary T-1 offset as well. Features a Harris BRM-S mounted via ADM.
https://i.imgur.com/m9rlAo1.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ODJ0rQY.jpg
Lots of great footage, including some of a 5.56 Recce, and a MK 20 SSR. These guys clearly get to pick whatever they want it seems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3rF7weYttU
Not noted is the Luepy mk6 is FFP / F1 whatever you want to call it, and available with Horus options. So one can shoot 0-1200 w/o spinning dials, fast. One can shoot 500m in 20mph Left full value, turn 180 and shoot 1200m in 30mph Right full value.. and hit.
I have one of the handful of individual purchase NF 2.5-10x24 hash NP-R2, illuminated, original "spec-war" marked optic. It is excellent glass for the size and weight. Probably the best.
Appears you exactly right on the optic still 4+ years after you said it. I love how optic tech isn't so frantic that by the time you buy one nice model, it's already being replaced by an updated model. The NF and Leupy optics used by SF units over the last decade and a half bear this out it seems.
The "Recon Nav-Spec", or the one you have marked "spec war" x24s are truly my bucket list optic.
badkarmaiii
09-08-19, 19:07
Excellent thread!
Hoping my recent build is DMR accurate.
badkarmaiii
09-22-19, 21:49
I shot a 1.35 and 1.6 moa group today with Mk 316 Mod 0 ammo today. Had major pressure signs with suppressor but not unsuppressed.
More testing is needed...
I shot a 1.35 and 1.6 moa group today with Mk 316 Mod 0 ammo today. Had major pressure signs with suppressor but not unsuppressed.
More testing is needed...
What are the specs on your rifle? Sounds like promising results.
If using.308 Recce type rifle and wanting to push the round out to say, a thousand yards, would ya be using a 20 moa base/mount with a 2-10, 3-15 flavor optic?
I never found the need for a 20 MOA riser on a NXS compact 2.5-10x24 or x32 optic when using it for 1K+ shooting with my 16" MWS. Then again, Nightforce has copious elevation adjustment at 100MOA.
https://youtu.be/dQtP8B03XuM
On a unrelated note.....F**K PHOTOBUCKET for ruining the internet, and a number of tech threads I've started over the years. Damn them for that!
Thank ya for the response. I’ll be running a 3-18 Gen2 Razor on my MWS that I just got and also found a Spuhr 20 moa mount too good to pass up. Better to have and not need, I guess...
badkarmaiii
11-16-19, 12:45
What are the specs on your rifle? Sounds like promising results.
DPMS G2 Recon with .8 diameter barrel.
Scope was a Diamondback Tactical FFP but I just ordered a Leupold VX-R Patrol 3-9x40.
Also got the new bolt and firing pin from DPMS.
Rifle is 7.2lbs without optic or can.
The SLR handguard shaved a lot of weight.
Been reading with interest for my next build. I take it there is little to no real advantage to a barrel longer than 16" for the 7.62?
I gotta say my Colt CM with 18' barrel in 6.5CM is a gun that is worth consideration. Sub MOA all day long, and very handy. I have a Burris 1-8 with offset RDS. Its a badass gun I rarely shoot.
I apologize if its already been said but I couldn't read the entire thread.
PB
I gotta say my Colt CM with 18' barrel in 6.5CM is a gun that is worth consideration. Sub MOA all day long, and very handy. I have a Burris 1-8 with offset RDS. Its a badass gun I rarely shoot.
I apologize if its already been said but I couldn't read the entire thread.
PB
The 6.5CM is a helluva round, but I just think it's threshold for velocity is commonly believed to be 18". Seems like your example would be a perfected, or enhanced SPR. Basically improving upon the light precision 18" 5.56. That it most certainly would do with flying colors.
Been reading with interest for my next build. I take it there is little to no real advantage to a barrel longer than 16" for the 7.62?
Strictly speaking for myself......16" is most certainly my limit. Any longer and I might as well just go with a 6.5CM barrel discussed in the previous two replies.
Just my 2cents.
Which is why one could consider a 24” LMT 6.5 Creedmoor barrel and wack it off at 16”-18”, giving it a rifle length gas tube. But then hopefully, LMT is working on it...
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-15-19, 20:53
I gotta say my Colt CM with 18' barrel in 6.5CM is a gun that is worth consideration. Sub MOA all day long, and very handy. I have a Burris 1-8 with offset RDS. Its a badass gun I rarely shoot.
I apologize if its already been said but I couldn't read the entire thread.
PB
Why the RDS with a 1-8 scope? Do you not find the 1-8 works well enough at 1x that an offset RDS is better? That is pretty damning of the 1-8.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you. I have an Accupoint 1-8 and a Leupy 1-8 and they do OK at 1-8, but when the local rifle match is more of a pistol match, we switched back to T-1s on our run&gun rifles.
IF I were going to run a RDS, I'd think about a 2-10 or 3-15. Love a 3-15 on my JP 18inch 556 gun and my LMT MWS, but it really is too much scope for most of what those guns are for. Better for paper shooting than moving around and small targets.
Been reading with interest for my next build. I take it there is little to no real advantage to a barrel longer than 16" for the 7.62?
Just a bit of velocity...
https://rifleshooter.com/2014/12/308-winchester-7-62x51mm-nato-barrel-length-versus-velocity-28-to-16-5/
Strictly speaking for myself......16" is most certainly my limit. Any longer and I might as well just go with a 6.5CM barrel discussed in the previous two replies.
Right. For something like 5.56 or 7.62NATO, there's not much point in going beyond 16-18", at least not shooting inside 600yds (which is the maximum at my local range).
If you're looking at a hyper-velocity round like 6.5CM (or .243, or whatever), then you're giving up a lot of oomph (and creating a lot of blast) by cutting the barrel short.
Defaultmp3
12-16-19, 20:53
Why the RDS with a 1-8 scope? Do you not find the 1-8 works well enough at 1x that an offset RDS is better? That is pretty damning of the 1-8.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you. I have an Accupoint 1-8 and a Leupy 1-8 and they do OK at 1-8, but when the local rifle match is more of a pistol match, we switched back to T-1s on our run&gun rifles.Can switch to RDS in a pinch if a target suddenly shows up while you're zoomed in. Also a handier back-up sight than irons often. If it's an actual offset position, rather than just a 1200 piggyback, can also be used easier when the gun is canted compared to trying to get behind the scope.
Just a bit of velocity...
https://rifleshooter.com/2014/12/308-winchester-7-62x51mm-nato-barrel-length-versus-velocity-28-to-16-5/
Right. For something like 5.56 or 7.62NATO, there's not much point in going beyond 16-18", at least not shooting inside 600yds (which is the maximum at my local range).
If you're looking at a hyper-velocity round like 6.5CM (or .243, or whatever), then you're giving up a lot of oomph (and creating a lot of blast) by cutting the barrel short.
Excellent link, just what I was looking for. Thanks!
If you're looking at a hyper-velocity round like 6.5CM (or .243, or whatever), then you're giving up a lot of oomph (and creating a lot of blast) by cutting the barrel short.
I'd say 6.5PRC is the hyper-velocity round you're looking for. 6.5CM is about the same velocity as .308, but uses a much more efficient bullet (typically). I have a 16" 6.5CM AR308 with a 1-6x scope and it works very, very well out to 600 yards.
https://rifleshooter.com/2019/03/6-5-creedmoor-effects-of-barrel-length-on-velocity-2019/
badkarmaiii
03-01-20, 20:35
Got to take the DPMS GII Recon 7.62x51 "Free Puppy" out to the range today.
Zeroed at 100 yards then confirmed it with a ~.75" 3 shot group.
Yeah I know. 3 shots. Ammo is expensive!
Trued dope at 800 then got some hits at 1000.
I'm satisfied with its performance.
Why the RDS with a 1-8 scope? Do you not find the 1-8 works well enough at 1x that an offset RDS is better? That is pretty damning of the 1-8.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you. I have an Accupoint 1-8 and a Leupy 1-8 and they do OK at 1-8, but when the local rifle match is more of a pistol match, we switched back to T-1s on our run&gun rifles.
IF I were going to run a RDS, I'd think about a 2-10 or 3-15. Love a 3-15 on my JP 18inch 556 gun and my LMT MWS, but it really is too much scope for most of what those guns are for. Better for paper shooting than moving around and small targets.
The scope came with offset RDS sight when I bought off a member here. So it wasn’t planned but I like it. No 1-8 with tube scope is as quick as RDS. So I’m not disappointed it on.
turnburglar
03-03-20, 23:44
Whether it's 7.62 or 6.5 what kinda MOA do you guys think a 'precision' gas gun should have?
I know everyone wishes they had a 1/4" gun, but to get the job done; what's the minimum accuracy requirement?
By my own quick math a 18" x 18" target is a 2.25 moa target at 800 yards. So realistically would a 1.5 moa gun be plenty?
hotrodder636
03-04-20, 06:00
I get 0.7-0.9 MOA with mine and I am pleased with that. Would I like better? Sure I would but I also understand limitations of the system when compared to a bolt gun.
Whether it's 7.62 or 6.5 what kinda MOA do you guys think a 'precision' gas gun should have?
I know everyone wishes they had a 1/4" gun, but to get the job done; what's the minimum accuracy requirement?
By my own quick math a 18" x 18" target is a 2.25 moa target at 800 yards. So realistically would a 1.5 moa gun be plenty?
Most will have a lot of trouble outshooting a 1 MOA gun.
While mo’ is always better, I don’t feel handicapped with a 1 MOA rifle.
Depends on what degree of success one would like to have. You have to account for wind error and the efficiency of the bullet. Of course having a repeatable system is important, solid no wind zero, solid fundamentals, scope that tracks properly and ammunition that is consistent. You can control some of those from the get go, the other, you can technically control with good reading skills and fundamentals. Sighting error, caused from lower quality optics, environmental and human error is another factor.
So, I would say minimum repeatable 1 Moa or less would be desirable. If you follow Bryan Litz, an elite wind reader is within 1-2 mph. So caliber/load dependent, you can be 3-6" of error with an average 6.5cm load with a 1mph error.
Whether it's 7.62 or 6.5 what kinda MOA do you guys think a 'precision' gas gun should have?
I know everyone wishes they had a 1/4" gun, but to get the job done; what's the minimum accuracy requirement?
By my own quick math a 18" x 18" target is a 2.25 moa target at 800 yards. So realistically would a 1.5 moa gun be plenty?
How much ammunition do you guys plan on carrying for the large frame guns, and is it worth it?
badkarmaiii
06-28-20, 23:25
How much ammunition do you guys plan on carrying for the large frame guns, and is it worth it?
A couple of combat vet buddies were discussing this recently.
One the advantages of 5.56 is low ammo weight but, in their experience, bad guys need to be shot more times to get them stopped.
An original goal of the 5.56, in the 50s, was controllable full auto.
That desire seems to be fading so maybe the battle rifle cartridges will see a resurgence.
They talked about always pulling the trigger 3 times with 5.56 and once with 7.62.
So, if a standard loadout of 5.56 is 210 rounds, divided by 3 is 70 rounds as a starting point.
Covering fire is a thing in the military so I wouldn't want that few.
My "Purse Gun" 300 BLK backpack SBR loadout is 81 rounds of supersonic, 51 rounds of subsonic and a can.
The 308 backpack AR I'm building will probably have a larger loadout but with SOST, M993, expanding subsonics and a can.
Maybe I need to carry more 300 BLK...
How much ammunition do you guys plan on carrying for the large frame guns, and is it worth it?so for me, it's 20 in the rifle, another 40 in two more mags in a bandoleer.
Yet in combat even a strong shooter in an accuracy oriented position will miss far more than hit. And six hours into the fight when you’re running low on ammo who is going to have M118LR to share?
badkarmaiii
09-03-20, 20:27
Great point.
I guess, in my head, I was thinking of someone with an extreme level of skill, which I definitely do not have.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.