View Full Version : Any "short handguard" Recce guys here?
wild_wild_wes
10-03-10, 17:07
The trend for Recce rifles is to have 12" handguards, but have any of you guys here built one with a 9" handguard? This would still leave room for a standard rail cover, and a bipod mount.
Saint Michael Arms
10-04-10, 00:10
I've read on various forums that the NSWC was not entirely pleased with the Mark 12 as a result of the Recce concept. The criticisms were that it was too heavy, and too precision oriented.
I don't see that a 12 inch rail is a set in stone requirement for a recce build. To my mind, the recce build is a general purpose rifle that can function as a DMR, and a general purpose carbine - a concept built in an era where the standard issue weapon was still largely a iron sighted A2 or M4. Really in todays world a M4 with an ACOG would perfectly fufill the original concept for a recce.
To add on top of all of this, we have the Magpul school of thought on weapon grips which requires long handguards for their style of gripping rifles.
Personally I'm not a big fan of the 12 inch rail requirement, simply for added weight penalties. Sure it gets BUIS sight picture out there, but you have a significant weight gain (I come from the super light school of thought), and no real benefit unless you run your support hand way out there.
YMMV.
Those are my random thoughts.:big_boss:
I'm running a KAC midlength 10" FF on my 16" barrel from Centurion. I'm really happy with it.
I use the full length 12" FF KAC on my SPR upper.
wild_wild_wes
10-04-10, 21:24
I've read on various forums that the NSWC was not entirely pleased with the Mark 12 as a result of the Recce concept. The criticisms were that it was too heavy, and too precision oriented.
I don't see that a 12 inch rail is a set in stone requirement for a recce build. To my mind, the recce build is a general purpose rifle that can function as a DMR, and a general purpose carbine - a concept built in an era where the standard issue weapon was still largely a iron sighted A2 or M4. Really in todays world a M4 with an ACOG would perfectly fufill the original concept for a recce.
Interesting! Still, there is a desire out there in certain quarters for something more precise than an M4/ACOG, but still compact- that is the origin of the Afghan concept, or so I have read.
I will be using a 9" handguard on a 16" middie (Noveske), so I'm not sure I can call it a Recce, though the only difference would be 3" of rail.
i did both in one... 12.0 FSBM.. 9" to the FSB, then under/around. this was actually heavier than simply doing a straight 9 or 12, with a front folder, but i'm a stubborn sonuvabitch when it comes to fixed FSBs.
http://c3.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/14/l_c26fb87114d749c1aaf6b541d835d7be.jpg
i later stuck a leupold vx3 on 'er, but apparently never got a pic. i didn't care for the extra weight, and had an SPR for hunting, so this one got cannibalized.
was a cool rifle, just too mah****in heavy.
I run a CASV-M, mid-length handguard on my Recce.
I don't see that a 12 inch rail is a set in stone requirement for a recce build. To my mind, the recce build is a general purpose rifle that can function as a DMR, and a general purpose carbine - a concept built in an era where the standard issue weapon was still largely a iron sighted A2 or M4. Really in todays world a M4 with an ACOG would perfectly fufill the original concept for a recce.
For the most part, I agree with Saint Michael Arms, with exception of an M4 + ACOG = 'Recce.' Adding an ACOG onto an M4 does nothing to increase the mechanical accuracy of the rifle. It helps the shooter be more accurate with the rifle, but that's all. The M4 with an ACOG still has an M4 barrel.
My understanding of the Recce concept is that it is an accurized M4 or 16" carbine; meaning that is has higher mechanical accuracy potential than the standard M4. The better accuracy potential is achieved by running a match-grade barrel of some sort. More often than not, the barrel is stainless steel, and usually has a profile that is heavier than the government M4 barrel profile. And while running a longer, free-float handguard seems to be one of the hallmarks of a Recce rifle, the length of the handguard isn't what makes a 16" carbine a Recce rifle. Barrel length (16"), and the increased accuracy potential of an upgraded barrel are what make a Recce. That's my interpretation, anyways.
Because there is no official designation for the 'Recce' rifle, the concept is pretty open for interpretation.
The difference in weight between a 9" and 12" rail is pretty minimal- the barrel nut and all that both weigh the same, and the aluminum used in the rail itself is very light. 12" rails on 16" barrels look the coolest, too, 10" on 12.5"-14.5", etc.
I have long arms, and tend to reach far out on the barrel to "drive the gun". Plus, I want the front BUIS and flashlight to be as far forward as possible. If you're dealing with barricades/support positions, more rail is generally better.
YMMV.
The difference in weight between a 9" and 12" rail is pretty minimal- the barrel nut and all that both weigh the same, and the aluminum used in the rail itself is very light. 12" rails on 16" barrels look the coolest, too, 10" on 12.5"-14.5", etc.
I have long arms, and tend to reach far out on the barrel to "drive the gun". Plus, I want the front BUIS and flashlight to be as far forward as possible. If you're dealing with barricades/support positions, more rail is generally better.
YMMV.
Pretty dead on the money imho.....do not forget the longer rail puts the bipod out further which is very advantageous.
The weight of the extra few inches of the rail is VERY minimal.
This is a very interesting thread as I have been wondering for a while just what exactly constitutes a "Recce Rifle".
This is a very interesting thread as I have been wondering for a while just what exactly constitutes a "Recce Rifle".
Technically, the Recce (according to Wes @ MSTN) is comprised of the following:
A match-grade 1/8" twist 16" stainless steel barrel with a carbine-length gas system, fixed FSB, and a KAC QD FH Suppressor mount mounted onto an M4 lower.
Anything else is fair game - rails, optics, whatever. The big part is the 16" stainless barrel.
wild_wild_wes
10-05-10, 21:00
For the most part, I agree with Saint Michael Arms, with exception of an M4 + ACOG = 'Recce.' Adding an ACOG onto an M4 does nothing to increase the mechanical accuracy of the rifle. It helps the shooter be more accurate with the rifle, but that's all. The M4 with an ACOG still has an M4 barrel.
My understanding of the Recce concept is that it is an accurized M4 or 16" carbine; meaning that is has higher mechanical accuracy potential than the standard M4. The better accuracy potential is achieved by running a match-grade barrel of some sort. More often than not, the barrel is stainless steel, and usually has a profile that is heavier than the government M4 barrel profile. And while running a longer, free-float handguard seems to be one of the hallmarks of a Recce rifle, the length of the handguard isn't what makes a 16" carbine a Recce rifle. Barrel length (16"), and the increased accuracy potential of an upgraded barrel are what make a Recce. That's my interpretation, anyways.
But it is an interesting, well thought-out interpretation!
wild_wild_wes
10-05-10, 21:01
Pretty dead on the money imho.....do not forget the longer rail puts the bipod out further which is very advantageous.
The weight of the extra few inches of the rail is VERY minimal.
True....YMMV of course, but I'm thinking that Recces are not often used off the bipod, since as argued above they are more of an accurized carbine rather than a full-blown SPR.
But it is an interesting, well thought-out interpretation!
Thanks. I guess my interpretation is based more on the general concept of the Recce rifle/Recon carbine, and not so much on the actual components needed to emulate/replicate an actual Recce firearm. To quote numerous sources: '...a support weapon with greater range, lethality, and precision than the issue M4 Carbine,' or something like that.
I've seen rifles ranging from those built as close as possible to the specs that Wes from MSTN states (see a few posts above), to an M4 upper with a shaved front sight base and a 12" FF railed handguard being referred to as Recce rifles. I do not think there is another AR-15 style that is as broadly interpretted than the Recce/Recon rifle.
Here's my Recce-ish build around a Superior Barrels 'Amynta' Recce barrel:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b349/_hikeeba_/Gun%20Stuff%202/Build1complete1.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b349/_hikeeba_/Gun%20Stuff%202/Build11stshoot05.jpg
Speaking of shorter handguards, I guess a mid-gas Recce could look like this:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b349/_hikeeba_/Gun%20stuff/BlkFDE.jpg
And for those who interpret a Recce as a 16" carbine with an extended handguard, here's my 9mm Recce (old pic):
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b349/_hikeeba_/Gun%20stuff/OurAR1001.jpg
:laugh: All in good fun.
Here is my Recce with a Troy handguard as she sits now. Still contemplating on which optic to use.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm229/killerchase2000/005-2.jpg
wild_wild_wes
10-06-10, 21:46
^ pretty sure a Recce needs a free-floated barrel.
^ pretty sure a Recce needs a free-floated barrel.
And a stainless one at that. A CMV/Moly barrel won't cut it. The point of a Recce is to squeeze every last bit of accuracy possible out of its compact size. If it's not stainless, it's not a Recce (or Recce-clone).
what about a recce with a centurion CHF taper-bored CMV barrel? more accurate than most stainless barrels, by accounts.
Saint Michael Arms
10-07-10, 00:15
For the most part, I agree with Saint Michael Arms, with exception of an M4 + ACOG = 'Recce.' Adding an ACOG onto an M4 does nothing to increase the mechanical accuracy of the rifle. It helps the shooter be more accurate with the rifle, but that's all. The M4 with an ACOG still has an M4 barrel.
My understanding of the Recce concept is that it is an accurized M4 or 16" carbine; meaning that is has higher mechanical accuracy potential than the standard M4. The better accuracy potential is achieved by running a match-grade barrel of some sort. More often than not, the barrel is stainless steel, and usually has a profile that is heavier than the government M4 barrel profile.
I agree. I suppose it gets trick when talking about the widely available custom builds on a civil/LEO side vs issue equipment for armed forces. Any free floated AR is easily a 1.5 to 1 moa rifle with match ammo; M4 or government profile 20" barrel or not.
Thus to my mind, free float the barrel, and get some match grade ammo, and you are firmly into recce territory. Asking much beyond 1 moa out of a GP carbine is pushing it. I really don't see how a heavier profile barrel will improve the accuracy of the gun, except maybe make POI shift less dramatic when using a can.
The difference in weight between a 9" and 12" rail is pretty minimal- the barrel nut and all that both weigh the same, and the aluminum used in the rail itself is very light. 12" rails on 16" barrels look the coolest, too, 10" on 12.5"-14.5", etc.
I have long arms, and tend to reach far out on the barrel to "drive the gun". Plus, I want the front BUIS and flashlight to be as far forward as possible. If you're dealing with barricades/support positions, more rail is generally better.
YMMV.
I should say I am a weight Nazi. Ounces make up pounds! Rails and free float tubes are getting pretty dang light, so this issue seems to be drying up, but still a shorter rail is worth it to me for weight savings and balance of a rifle. I haven't totally bought into the magpul school of thought on extended arms for CQB - not that it doesn't work, just I haven't been convinced it is the only way.
Sounds alot like my Noveske Recon 16.1"
Technically, the Recce (according to Wes @ MSTN) is comprised of the following:
A match-grade 1/8" twist 16" stainless steel barrel with a carbine-length gas system, fixed FSB, and a KAC QD FH Suppressor mount mounted onto an M4 lower.
Anything else is fair game - rails, optics, whatever. The big part is the 16" stainless barrel.
Failure2Stop
10-07-10, 05:24
The Recce is more of a concept than a fixed item.
Pretty dead on the money imho.....do not forget the longer rail puts the bipod out further which is very advantageous.
True. Getting the bipod closer to the muzzle stabilizes the gun better than a rearward placement and leaves room for the hand on the HG.
Further, once you stick on your various IR lasers and illuminators, light, and inline NOD, there isn't much room to place the support hand or to use a supported position. Longer handguards give you more usability and better protect the barrel from lateral pressure in such positions.
The advantages of a longer freefloated HG outweigh the minimal weight penalty. Build the gun the way you want, around your needs, but you might be limiting yourself without knowing it.
I agree. I suppose it gets trick when talking about the widely available custom builds on a civil/LEO side vs issue equipment for armed forces. Any free floated AR is easily a 1.5 to 1 moa rifle with match ammo; M4 or government profile 20" barrel or not.
Thus to my mind, free float the barrel, and get some match grade ammo, and you are firmly into recce territory. Asking much beyond 1 moa out of a GP carbine is pushing it. I really don't see how a heavier profile barrel will improve the accuracy of the gun, except maybe make POI shift less dramatic when using a can.
I should say I am a weight Nazi. Ounces make up pounds! Rails and free float tubes are getting pretty dang light, so this issue seems to be drying up, but still a shorter rail is worth it to me for weight savings and balance of a rifle. I haven't totally bought into the magpul school of thought on extended arms for CQB - not that it doesn't work, just I haven't been convinced it is the only way.
If you're a weight Nazi, then I think you're going down the wrong path with trying to shave ounces if you're going with a stainless barrel, which is inherently heavier. Quality hammer-forged chrome barrels such as BCM and Daniel Defense are surprisingly accurate, more durable, and would be my choice. Even my Spikes LE barrel surprised me with its accuracy :p
And a stainless one at that. A CMV/Moly barrel won't cut it. The point of a Recce is to squeeze every last bit of accuracy possible out of its compact size. If it's not stainless, it's not a Recce (or Recce-clone).
Why does Noveske call it a Recce then?
Interpretations of the concept:
^ pretty sure a Recce needs a free-floated barrel.
And a stainless one at that. A CMV/Moly barrel won't cut it.
The concept (more or less):
The point of a Recce is to squeeze every last bit of accuracy possible out of its compact size.
The Recce/Recon Rifle:
The Recce is more of a concept than a fixed item.
I agree. I suppose it gets trick when talking about the widely available custom builds on a civil/LEO side vs issue equipment for armed forces. Any free floated AR is easily a 1.5 to 1 moa rifle with match ammo; M4 or government profile 20" barrel or not.
Thus to my mind, free float the barrel, and get some match grade ammo, and you are firmly into recce territory. Asking much beyond 1 moa out of a GP carbine is pushing it.
While match ammo may help the average issue M4, M16, or a standard civilian chrome-lined 5.56 chambered 16" AR-15 achieve better accuracy, it doesn't figure into to the Recce concept. Here's another edition of 'Wes From MSTN says...'
(from the all-knowing and always correct oracle that is wikipedia)
According to Wes Grant of M.S.T.N. a premiere small arms builder, these weapons were initially built in-house with the only specifications being the ability to shoot any 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge in inventory (at the time this included the first iterations of the 77-grain (5 g) Mk 262 Mod 0 cartridge), and that the weapon have a barrel 16 inches (406 mm) in length.
Ammo wasn't a consideration when the Recce Rifle was conceived. It was just intended to be a compact rifle with better accuracy potential than the issue M4. And yes - the concept has gotten pretty trick in the custom build civilian realm. Perhaps one of the best 'tricks' being the departure from the standard 5.56 NATO chamber to one of several different match-type chambers.
But on the ammo front, the Recce rifle was the basis for the SPR program. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there was a round developed for use specifically with the US Navy Mk 12 SPR.
I lumped your two weight issues in one quote, SMA. And no, I'm not picking on you. I just find your comments to be interesting and thought-provoking. :)
I really don't see how a heavier profile barrel will improve the accuracy of the gun, except maybe make POI shift less dramatic when using a can.
I should say I am a weight Nazi. Ounces make up pounds! Rails and free float tubes are getting pretty dang light, so this issue seems to be drying up, but still a shorter rail is worth it to me for weight savings and balance of a rifle. I haven't totally bought into the magpul school of thought on extended arms for CQB - not that it doesn't work, just I haven't been convinced it is the only way.
A heavier barrel profile will be stiffer and have better heat sinking abilities than a thinner barrel. The heavier barrel profile used on a Recce concept was a simple step toward improving mechanial accuracy potential, and maintaining that accuracy potential as much as possible during a frequent or sustained fire incident (maybe).
As far as longer handguards go, not only do they offer more real estate for attaching whatever accessories and using the Magpul/extended arm technique, but they can offer a larger area on which you can rest the rifle and they provide protection for the gas block.
Sort of off-topic, but if you're a weight Nazi, you might enjoy perusing the AR-15 Upper Receiver Weight Comparisons posted at the 03DesignGroup website: http://www.03designgroup.com/technotes/ar15-upper-receiver-weight-comparisons. Granted, it is comprised of uppers available from BCM, but it is interesting stuff, nonetheless.
This was my first AR. Noveske SS Recon barrel, DD 9.0 Lite Rail & MUR 1A. I sold it off because I'm an idiot. The gun was crazy accurate, but it was heavy due to the barrel profile. Thinking back, I'm not sure why I went for the shorter rail and if I had to do it again I would use a 12" DD or a rifle length URX II.
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/mtdawg169/MURside.jpg
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/mtdawg169/100_0604.jpg
Why does Noveske call it a Recce then?
Marketing. Also, "recce" is slang, while "Recon" is the official name. Notice the stainless Noveske 16" is called a "Recon" (I have that rifle).
To be fair, the only person I know of who's built true recon clones is Wes @ MSTN. If the barrel isn't a 16", heavy-profile, 1/8" twist with a carbine gas system, it isn't a true recon rifle. This means every "recce" out there is called so incorrectly.
However, the whole point of the recon rifle was a super-accurized M4. The Navy SEALS requested such a weapon and Crane gave them the SPR. They didn't like the SPR, so they sent it back to Crane, who made it into a smaller 16" package. The Recon is truly a miniature SPR (albeit with less range) that can perform in a CQC role as well. The only debate is which role comes first.
That said, you can use different gas systems, sights, stocks, etc; but using anything other than a stainless barrel defeats the entire purpose of the Recon rifle program. I won't say you can't call it a Recon rifle (or Recon-like), but you have to understand why it was developed to see where it would be useful. A 16" CMV m4gery is simply an M4 that can reach out another 100yds, if that. There's no gain, aside from velocity, from the extra 1.5" of barrel.
That is why Recon rifles (or clones of them) should have stainless barrels, if they're being built to the intent of the original design. Hope that explains it.
Marketing. Also, "recce" is slang, while "Recon" is the official name. Notice the stainless Noveske 16" is called a "Recon" (I have that rifle).
To be fair, the only person I know of who's built true recon clones is Wes @ MSTN. If the barrel isn't a 16", heavy-profile, 1/8" twist with a carbine gas system, it isn't a true recon rifle. This means every "recce" out there is called so incorrectly.
However, the whole point of the recon rifle was a super-accurized M4. The Navy SEALS requested such a weapon and Crane gave them the SPR. They didn't like the SPR, so they sent it back to Crane, who made it into a smaller 16" package. The Recon is truly a miniature SPR (albeit with less range) that can perform in a CQC role as well. The only debate is which role comes first.
That said, you can use different gas systems, sights, stocks, etc; but using anything other than a stainless barrel defeats the entire purpose of the Recon rifle program. I won't say you can't call it a Recon rifle (or Recon-like), but you have to understand why it was developed to see where it would be useful. A 16" CMV m4gery is simply an M4 that can reach out another 100yds, if that. There's no gain, aside from velocity, from the extra 1.5" of barrel.
That is why Recon rifles (or clones of them) should have stainless barrels, if they're being built to the intent of the original design. Hope that explains it.
Ah makes sense.
THREE BIG CRITERIA for Trident82's Seal Recon Rifle:
16" SS match grade barrel
12" PLUS F-F rail
Mid-powered ranging optic....1-4x, 2.5-10x, 3-9x.
Like Skyyr seems to be pretty avid of the whole SS vs CHF/CL barrel aspect, my biggest stickler is the use of REALLLY long rails on true PRECISION based Recce Rifles.
These guns should blow away a traditional M4/Carbine using a traditional m4 cut CL 14.5" barrel in terms of accuracy....somebody mentioned that basically any m4/AR w. match ammo can shoot moa....could not disagree more with that and if that is true than they are counting 3 rd. groups as the military never designed the basic m4 carbine to be any more accurate than 2-3moa running quality ammo.
wild_wild_wes
10-07-10, 22:13
I should say I am a weight Nazi. Ounces make up pounds! Rails and free float tubes are getting pretty dang light, so this issue seems to be drying up, but still a shorter rail is worth it to me for weight savings and balance of a rifle.
This is one of my concerns. My SPR is crazy heavy; I want a lighter, more compact companion piece. Which leads me to:
This was my first AR. Noveske SS Recon barrel, DD 9.0 Lite Rail & MUR 1A. I sold it off because I'm an idiot. The gun was crazy accurate, but it was heavy due to the barrel profile. Thinking back, I'm not sure why I went for the shorter rail and if I had to do it again I would use a 12" DD or a rifle length URX II.
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/mtdawg169/MURside.jpg
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i287/mtdawg169/100_0604.jpg
How did that rifle balance? I'm planning on the same reciever/barrel/handguard/stock combo. I got a UBR, but it just seems too heavy to put on a 5.56 rifle, but might use it if needed to balance the rifle out....though I'd rather make it as light as possible.
wild_wild_wes
10-07-10, 22:17
As far as longer handguards go....they provide protection for the gas block.
Not a concern with a pinned gas block.
Technically, the Recce (according to Wes @ MSTN) is comprised of the following:
A match-grade 1/8" twist 16" stainless steel barrel with a carbine-length gas system, fixed FSB, and a KAC QD FH Suppressor mount mounted onto an M4 lower.
Anything else is fair game - rails, optics, whatever. The big part is the 16" stainless barrel.
I think I found a picture of one in the wild:
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/3344/maaybereccerifle.jpg
Not a concern with a pinned gas block.
True.
But I don't know how many home-built Recce-type rifles have pinned gas blocks. I didn't pin my gas block. I thought about doing it, but decided not to. Maybe on the next one.
Edit: Neato pic LaVista!
How did that rifle balance? I'm planning on the same reciever/barrel/handguard/stock combo. I got a UBR, but it just seems too heavy to put on a 5.56 rifle, but might use it if needed to balance the rifle out....though I'd rather make it as light as possible.
I had the same setup, except for an 11" rail - it did not balance well at all. It was very muzzle heavy. I had to switch to a UBR, which balanced it MUCH better.
I think I found a picture of one in the wild:
Looks plausible to me. Notice the FSB was fixed, but shaved down.
Any idea what scope is on that? The sheer size of the tube makes me think it's a US Optics scope, not sure which model though.
I think I found a picture of one in the wild:
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/3344/maaybereccerifle.jpg
So am I only one who has no clue who those gents on the RIB are....moreover what the heck kinda guns they are sporting???
Hell, I will say it....That lead gun looks like the biggest POS ive seen and there is no damn way that any member of the specops community would be packing what appears to be a nasty fluting job on the barrel, an even worse looking rail which looks identical to the china UTG aluminum models, and his IR unit and whatever type scope looks straight up airsoft imho. Those nerdy airsoft folks take that ghey stuff super serious and I would not put it past one of their ghey affairs to take action shots posing as some kinda elite amphibous force.
Sorry, stared at that pic since it was posted hoping I would not be the first to have to stat how incorrect everything looks in it.
So am I only one who has no clue who those gents on the RIB are....moreover what the heck kinda guns they are sporting???
Hell, I will say it....That lead gun looks like the biggest POS ive seen and there is no damn way that any member of the specops community would be packing what appears to be a nasty fluting job on the barrel, an even worse looking rail which looks identical to the china UTG aluminum models, and his IR unit and whatever type scope looks straight up airsoft imho. Those nerdy airsoft folks take that ghey stuff super serious and I would not put it past one of their ghey affairs to take action shots posing as some kinda elite amphibous force.
Sorry, stared at that pic since it was posted hoping I would not be the first to have to stat how incorrect everything looks in it.
I had the same initial thoughts, just not sure how old the photo is or who the team in question is, so I'm holding off judgment until some IP's can chime in.
wild_wild_wes
10-08-10, 13:31
$1 to anyone who comes up with a real pic of a Recce in the field.
$1 to anyone who comes up with a real pic of a Recce in the field.
real?
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5515/sealsnipers6uy1.jpg
Belmont31R
10-08-10, 13:53
That is a Mk12Mod1.
real?
http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5515/sealsnipers6uy1.jpg
That's a Mk12 Mod1 SPR. The fixed stock, gas block, handguards, Ops Inc can and collar... all dead giveaways.
So am I only one who has no clue who those gents on the RIB are....moreover what the heck kinda guns they are sporting???
Hell, I will say it....That lead gun looks like the biggest POS ive seen and there is no damn way that any member of the specops community would be packing what appears to be a nasty fluting job on the barrel, an even worse looking rail which looks identical to the china UTG aluminum models, and his IR unit and whatever type scope looks straight up airsoft imho. Those nerdy airsoft folks take that ghey stuff super serious and I would not put it past one of their ghey affairs to take action shots posing as some kinda elite amphibous force.
Sorry, stared at that pic since it was posted hoping I would not be the first to have to stat how incorrect everything looks in it.
That picture was released by the AP a couple months back. It's the Polish GROM doing a VBSS practice. The rest of the picture set was of them boarding and clearing a vessel.
$1 to anyone who comes up with a real pic of a Recce in the field.
Can you give me a minute...I am running outside to snap a pic in my backyard:D:D
That's a Mk12 Mod1 SPR. The fixed stock, gas block, handguards, Ops Inc can and collar... all dead giveaways.
I should have know better. I really don't think I've ever seen a proper Recce/Recon rifle "in the field" or in use. Such a mythical and conceptual beast.
That picture was released by the AP a couple months back. It's the Polish GROM doing a VBSS practice. The rest of the picture set was of them boarding and clearing a vessel.
I will take your word on that since its not U.S. Soldiers but damn I feel sorry for those Poles....their arsenal appears to include quite a bit of fine product from the far east:) Seriously that lead gun is horrific...why not run a barrel that at least looks like its not all jimmied up with a hacked fsp and ganked fluting, etc. like that one pic'd.
Magic_Salad0892
10-08-10, 15:27
Sort of on topic:
How do the Recce SS barrels hold up to sustained fire in CQB?
Sort of on topic:
How do the Recce SS barrels hold up to sustained fire in CQB?
depends on the manufacturer. some manfers use harder/more heat/friction resistant steel than others. noveske's, for instance, will probably go twice as long/hot as some others.
but no stainless barrel, regardless of stainless grade used, will take the type of punishment even cheap 4140 chrome-lined barrels can take before damage. when stainless gets super hot, rifling erodes fast.
Sort of on topic:
How do the Recce SS barrels hold up to sustained fire in CQB?
That is a legit drawback to any true match grade SS barrel given the actual barrel heat or temp is what degrades the SS far more than the actual rd. ct. on the barrel.
That said, the argument plays hardly any into whether one should go with a SS recce or get a CL recon type....as both are never meant to have prolonged cqb exposure but rather maintain a solid ability for cqb should a particular situation arise that calls for it. I would never go shooting strings w. a match grade SS however If several times I had to throw several pmags through it during sustained fire I would not be worried that amt. would degrade it.
I will take your word on that since its not U.S. Soldiers but damn I feel sorry for those Poles....their arsenal appears to include quite a bit of fine product from the far east:) Seriously that lead gun is horrific...why not run a barrel that at least looks like its not all jimmied up with a hacked fsp and ganked fluting, etc. like that one pic'd.
You do realize that GROM is one of the worlds premier special operations groups and that they often work alongside Seal teams? Just because a piece of equipment they use looks "cheap" or "Airsofty" doesn't mean they don't have a good reason for having it. Form follows function and all that good stuff. I bet they know a few things about their mission profile and if that upper wasn't suitable for the job at hand they would get something else. They arent short for expensive toys.
Sure, the guy in front with the "Recce" might have a funky YHM freefloating handguard, but the barrel seems pretty match grade to me, and his US Optics something-or-other is nothing to shake a stick at, figure its price is well north of a Short Dot.
Everyone else on the boat has HK416's, and those lasers are D-BAL A2's - Top of the line. The USMC Refers to them as "PEQ-16's".
I would be careful "feeling sorry" for any member of GROM, for any reason. They may take offense!
likewise, just because they are "elite" doesn't mean they're using the best shit out there, or even necessarily know what the "best shit" is. our own military does a comparatively good job- but still fall way short of the technology available to the civilian market.
You do realize that GROM is one of the worlds premier special operations groups and that they often work alongside Seal teams? Just because a piece of equipment they use looks "cheap" or "Airsofty" doesn't mean they don't have a good reason for having it. Form follows function and all that good stuff. I bet they know a few things about their mission profile and if that upper wasn't suitable for the job at hand they would get something else. They arent short for expensive toys.
Sure, the guy in front with the "Recce" might have a funky YHM freefloating handguard, but the barrel seems pretty match grade to me, and his US Optics something-or-other is nothing to shake a stick at, figure its price is well north of a Short Dot.
Everyone else on the boat has HK416's, and those lasers are D-BAL A2's - Top of the line. The USMC Refers to them as "PEQ-16's".
I would be careful "feeling sorry" for any member of GROM, for any reason. They may take offense!
First off, yes I am well aware of who the Polish GROM are and while they prob. are a crack unit, they are certainly no more regarded than the British SAS (specifically the 22 SAS regiment) or the German KSK.
I have to stand by my org. statements on that pic...that pic looks totally bogus but that is just my opinion.
eta.....how can you tell that the barrel " seems pretty match grade"?
also I can almost positively say that the optic is not a USO but either way, how can you calculate the price being north of a 2k plus shortdot when we have yet to determine what its actual make is?
wild_wild_wes
10-08-10, 19:56
Well, as long as we are derailing this thread: in Polish, "grom" means "thunder".
Anyway. Here is what the mythical Recce in its pure state is supposed to look like:
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/recce2.jpg
But why go Carbine gas when Middy is so much better....
Anyway II. I am still not decided on this issue. I want the gun to be light, but balance is important too....
nobody is ever going to agree on what a "true" recce is, because there's no such thing as a "true recce" to begin with. as we all know, there was an original design- but that doesn't mean anything. how many were actually produced? 5? how many stayed in the original crane configuration once in the hands of those who took them and said, "nice, but i don't like that, that, and this. gonna change it?"
a recce, for our purposes, is a match-grade 16" barrel with fixed FSB of choice- stainless or not- mid or carbine, free floating handguards of choice, M4 lower with stock of choice, pistol grip of choice, low-power magnified optic of choice on a mount of choice. anybody who says "that's not a recce" and puts their nose in the air is just being cheesy.
its almost a unicorn to begin with. chill.
wild_wild_wes
10-08-10, 20:19
unicorn
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/ReconNavSpec.jpg
unicorn
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/ReconNavSpec.jpg
HELL YEAH BROTHER....that dude is the same damn thing as my imaginary C Doll lower. That is simply AWESOME:p
Sad story.....the first nf I grabbed was the nxs 2.5 (x32) and when grabbing it I actually passed on a regular " Nav Spec" nxs 2.5 (x24) only to pick a x24 up a cpl. months ago:(
The Nav Spec's and then the Unicorn you pic'd undergo 10 extra hours of testing, mostly salt water testing IIrc.
You the man for posting that pic.
Well, as long as we are derailing this thread: in Polish, "grom" means "thunder".
Anyway. Here is what the mythical Recce in its pure state is supposed to look like:
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/recce2.jpg
But why go Carbine gas when Middy is so much better....
Anyway II. I am still not decided on this issue. I want the gun to be light, but balance is important too....
Besides the shorter rail on Wes's builds, I am pretty close to the same spec as his definition but again I cannot agree with Wes's rail length but its not a biggie I guess.
http://i55.tinypic.com/212u3xc.jpg
wild_wild_wes
10-08-10, 21:54
I'm not a cloner; I base my builds on what works best....this "Recce" of mine will thus have a midlength barrel on a MUR reciever, so I am no purist....
a recce, for our purposes, is a match-grade 16" barrel ... stainless or not
You can't have match-grade accuracy with chrome-lining and last I checked, none of the "good to go" barrel makers were making non-chrome-lined CM/V barrels, only stainless.
Just sayin' ;)
You can't have match-grade accuracy with chrome-lining and last I checked, none of the "good to go" barrel makers were making non-chrome-lined CM/V barrels, only stainless.
Just sayin' ;)
check again... www.centurionarms.com
eta- and some of the most accurate barrels you'll ever come across are un-lined 4140s.
check again... www.centurionarms.com
eta- and some of the most accurate barrels you'll ever come across are un-lined 4140s.
A match-grade chrome-lined barrel is an oxymoron, as chrome-lining will ALWAYS reduce accuracy. Chrome-lining is done post-rifling and is applied as a coating. As such, it is uneven at the molecular level and results in a less consistent surface. This is why stainless barrels are used almost exclusively for match shooting. Therefore, any barrel that is chrome-lined isn't a match-grade barrel. Also, CL'd barrels can have their accuracy degraded immensely should the CL'ing chip/flake (which isn't uncommon). This is another reason you rarely ever see CL'ing in precision barrels.
It doesn't mean they can't be accurate, it just means they aren't as accurate as they would be without it. Now obviously a good, quality CL barrel is better than a crappy non-CL barrel. Such is the case with Noveske, Centurion, and BCM barrels. However, they're still not as accurate as their non-CL barrels. If you already knew this, then disregard.
Also, your comment about 4140 being accurate is along the same lines. Stainless, in practical terms, is not anymore accurate than CM/V, however CM/V doesn't have the corrosion resistance that stainless does. You're right, you can have a non-CL match-grade 4140 barrel, but it will rust very easily, hence why most people opt for stainless in the first place and few reputable barrel makers (actually none that I know of) make match-grade non-CL CM/V barrels.
I am beyond a true believer of SS barrels for my needs as I build my guns defensive minded 9.5/10 times. It depressed me when I first accepted the fact that SS barrels were indeed that much more accurate than any CL barrel I have heard off or shot personally. Two totally diff. barrels for two totally diff. applications imho....the majority of the AR world still does not stress match accuracy and rather just combat accuracy. I believe with a lot of research and time/treasure invested, ARs with precision applications can truly become the infamous "space guns" that give you all you want with accuracy even in the face of match bolt guns yet yield that volume/rate of fire that the bolt will never give you.
No big deal which ever mindset you take w. ARs but I see them first as a potentially incredible platform to deliver S/A accuracy...rather than offensive or high volume application gun.
The Recce is more of a concept than a fixed item.
This. the Recce rifle has always been a "concept" with no strict definition. Generally, they have been a 16" match grade barrel with a longer handguard and a low profile gas block. I think the originals had a carbine length gas system, but that was likely a result of midlength gas tubes not being in the supply chain.
Marketing. Also, "recce" is slang, while "Recon" is the official name. Notice the stainless Noveske 16" is called a "Recon" (I have that rifle).
To be fair, the only person I know of who's built true recon clones is Wes @ MSTN. If the barrel isn't a 16", heavy-profile, 1/8" twist with a carbine gas system, it isn't a true recon rifle. This means every "recce" out there is called so incorrectly.
To say that anything other than MSTN's "clone" is incorrect is a stretch IMHO. Monty from Centurion Arms carries a Mk 12 for a living and is very well versed in the history of the recce. He sells a 16" midlength for recce builds in fact. I don't think I would tell him that he is building them wrong.
How did that rifle balance? I'm planning on the same reciever/barrel/handguard/stock combo. I got a UBR, but it just seems too heavy to put on a 5.56 rifle, but might use it if needed to balance the rifle out....though I'd rather make it as light as possible.
Wes, it was nose heavy. I think a SOPMOD would have been a good companion to that rifle. Also, I think the MUR isn't necessary. I have had two rifles with MUR uppers and I don't really see a noticeable difference in my uppers with standard receivers.
A match-grade chrome-lined barrel is an oxymoron, as chrome-lining will ALWAYS reduce accuracy. Chrome-lining is done post-rifling and is applied as a coating. As such, it is uneven at the molecular level and results in a less consistent surface. This is why stainless barrels are used almost exclusively for match shooting. Therefore, any barrel that is chrome-lined isn't a match-grade barrel. Also, CL'd barrels can have their accuracy degraded immensely should the CL'ing chip/flake (which isn't uncommon). This is another reason you rarely ever see CL'ing in precision barrels.
It doesn't mean they can't be accurate, it just means they aren't as accurate as they would be without it. Now obviously a good, quality CL barrel is better than a crappy non-CL barrel. Such is the case with Noveske, Centurion, and BCM barrels. However, they're still not as accurate as their non-CL barrels. If you already knew this, then disregard.
I'll refer to bkb0000's post. While I always thought that SS and "match grade" were synonymous, the Centurion barrels have made me rethink that. Monty has gotten moa or better from his CL CHF barrels at something like 600 or 800 meters. That is pretty damn match grade in my book. Additionally, they are lighter than a traditional SS match barrel, which was probably my only complaint against my Noveske recon barreled upper.
Which brings me to my final thought. Wes, what kind of accuracy are you getting from your Centurion barreled upper? My only complaint against the SS barrels is their weight. If you can get similar accuracy from a Centurion, a similar build with a lightweight 12" rail might be a good compromise between weight, balance and accuracy. FWIW, if you don't mind the weight and want to run something heavier than a CTR, the Noveske Recon was one hell of a shooter.
the weight is what makes the recce impractical, and really not desirable. like i said above, i just couldn't handle the extra weight for what i wanted- an accurized M4 with a better effective range, basically. centurion, BEING MATCH GRADE, definitely changes that up.. we'll see how this hunting season goes with my current SPR... i may even re-try the recce again for next year, if i think i can lighten it up substantially.
the weight is what makes the recce impractical, and really not desirable. like i said above, i just couldn't handle the extra weight for what i wanted- an accurized M4 with a better effective range, basically. centurion, BEING MATCH GRADE, definitely changes that up.. we'll see how this hunting season goes with my current SPR... i may even re-try the recce again for next year, if i think i can lighten it up substantially.
Lately I've been thinking about going with an 18" SPR. The way I see it, if the 16" is already heavy and not really what I'm looking for in a carbine, why not go all the way for an accuracy driven upper? I guess I have beeen spoiled by the light weight nad faster handling of my SR15. Anything much heavier than that in a 16" platform just feels like a pig.
Lately I've been thinking about going with an 18" SPR. The way I see it, if the 16" is already heavy and not really what I'm looking for in a carbine, why not go all the way for an accuracy driven upper? I guess I have beeen spoiled by the light weight nad faster handling of my SR15. Anything much heavier than that in a 16" platform just feels like a pig.
Because Less is more potentially given accuracy is the same or even better with a 16" recce vs. the 18" spr.
After exploring the topic of the two diff. respective builds for about 2 yrs now I am gonna take the true match grade recce over the true match grade SPR....I actually worked this whole topic out on paper as seen in the pic below:)
http://i55.tinypic.com/347zk46.jpg
wild_wild_wes
10-09-10, 19:00
Lately I've been thinking about going with an 18" SPR. The way I see it, if the 16" is already heavy and not really what I'm looking for in a carbine, why not go all the way for an accuracy driven upper? I guess I have beeen spoiled by the light weight nad faster handling of my SR15. Anything much heavier than that in a 16" platform just feels like a pig.
It sounds like you are rehashing the story of the Recce....the users want an accurized carbine; they recieve the SPR, which is more of a rifle. The SPR went on to be a very useful and effective weapon, but this is not to say there is not room for the Recce concept. In fact we also have the Afghan/Recon Scout 14.5" precision carbines, so there is also that to consider, as well.
Go with the Magpul Vertical Foregrip.
It sounds like you are rehashing the story of the Recce....the users want an accurized carbine; they recieve the SPR, which is more of a rifle. The SPR went on to be a very useful and effective weapon, but this is not to say there is not room for the Recce concept. In fact we also have the Afghan/Recon Scout 14.5" precision carbines, so there is also that to consider, as well.
True. I probably should qualify my statement to say that this may be what is best for me as a civi shooter with limited resources and time. The recce definitely has a place when it comes to specific mission requirements of real world shooters. But for me, a 16" middie is about the same no matter what barrel I'm using. Given that, I am gravitating towards having a 16" carbine geared toward light weight and a heavier, accuracy oriented SPR.
Back on topic, Wes if you go with the build you described, I would recommend a longer rail and a stock heavier than the CTR to balance things out. I like the longer rails for a couple of reasons. First, in my mind it just isn't quite a recce without a long rail over the gas block, something in the 10-12" range. Second, my shooting style has changed and I prefer to grip the rail further out and the gas block location is where I seem to naturally place my hand. I'm not a full on extended arm, thumb over the top, MD style shooter, but I do prefer the extended grip.
Sortof still on topic, what is your opinion of the Centurion HF CL barrels? Are they accurate enough to fill the recce role? Let's just forget the whole SS vs CMV discussion for a sec and talk about pure accuracy potential. I know you will probably use a SS barrel for your recce, I'm just asking out of pure curiousity.
wild_wild_wes
10-09-10, 21:53
I have not shot the Centurion for accuracy; I have an ACOG on it, and thought of it more as a "heavy duty" rather than a "precision" type carbine; interesting question though! To do a proper accuracy assessment, I would have to put my SPR's scope on it, and try out several of the heavy 75 grain or heavier projectiles to see which it prefers. I don't know if I have the time to do such a test though. Hammer-forged barrels might turn the current chromed carbon steel vs. stainless barrel paradigm on its head. Or it might not. I've heard the SCAR-17 with 16" lightweight CHF barrel is quite a performer as far as combat accuracy goes.
wild_wild_wes
10-10-10, 08:12
I have decided to go with a 9" HG for my build. Don't get me wrong; long handguards are here to stay; here is a recent pic of USMC SOCOM in Afghanistan:
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/RISII8.jpg
I will be using a DD Lite, so if the HG turns out to be too short, I will just buy a 12" and switch the front out, and put the old unit on the EE. Likewise, this is going on an existing lower (I'm in California, and have only three registered AW lowers), so for now it has a CTR tele; I will see how it balances, but I am loath to switch it out unless necessary, because I want to keep the weight to a minimum.
Just to show you though the need for a compact precision carbine, here is a pic from TF Ranger in Somalia, 1993:
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/TFRRangerinSomalia1993.jpg
I have decided to go with a 9" HG for my build.
I will be using a DD Lite, so if the HG turns out to be too short, I will just buy a 12" and switch the front out, and put the old unit on the EE. Likewise, this is going on an existing lower (I'm in California, and have only three registered AW lowers), so for now it has a CTR tele; I will see how it balances, but I am loath to switch it out unless necessary, because I want to keep the weight to a minimum.
If you're going with a mid-length gas system and a fixed FSB, you know DD does make an extended Lite Rail with the cutout for the mid-length FSB (Lite Rail 12.0 FSPM). Could be the best of both worlds if ounces are not a primary concern. I've sort of been thinking about doing a build with one of those.
And I'm sorry to re-hash a dead topic but...
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/3344/maaybereccerifle.jpg
I will take your word on that since its not U.S. Soldiers but damn I feel sorry for those Poles....their arsenal appears to include quite a bit of fine product from the far east:) Seriously that lead gun is horrific...why not run a barrel that at least looks like its not all jimmied up with a hacked fsp and ganked fluting, etc. like that one pic'd.
It almost looks to me like the fluted barrel could be something offered by Sabre Defense. Sabre makes fluted SS barrels, and IIRC they are based in the UK, which would put them in a good position to market to the European Union. That's just a theory, however.
This thread has just about every thing in it except recce discussion.
FSP's....short rails.....CL/combat accurate barrels(same thing as an "un accurized" standard Colt M4.....bipod has been maligned as well. No glass discussion which is arguably the biggest feature to a Recce.
I will bow out now as these "recce" threads usually end up discussing something that is in my book totally not a recce and I cannot help always thinking that some folks just want to build whatever they personal want in an AR drawing from across the spectrum in terms of specs/parts...and then attach the cool name of recce rifle to it, even if its function is no different than a normal 16" M4.
wild_wild_wes
10-10-10, 12:09
This thread has just about every thing in it except recce discussion. No glass discussion which is arguably the biggest feature to a Recce.
different thread
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=63781
wild_wild_wes
10-10-10, 12:11
If you're going with a mid-length gas system and a fixed FSB,
I'm using a Noveske Recon barrel with pinned-on low-profile gas block.
wild_wild_wes
10-10-10, 12:13
This thread has just about every thing in it except recce discussion. FSP's....short rails.....CL/combat accurate barrels(same thing as an "un accurized" standard Colt M4.....bipod has been maligned as well. I will bow out now as these "recce" threads usually end up discussing something that is in my book totally not a recce and I cannot help always thinking that some folks just want to build whatever they personal want in an AR drawing from across the spectrum in terms of specs/parts...and then attach the cool name of recce rifle to it, even if its function is no different than a normal 16" M4.
I'm sure I have typed the word "precision" at least five times so far in this thread, so we are definitely not discussing M4s here.
This thread has just about every thing in it except recce discussion.
OK.
Yesterday my buddy mentioned that if he gets another AWD car someday, that he'd like to get RECCE as his license plate. He is, after all, a WRC fan.
I'm using a Noveske Recon barrel with pinned-on low-profile gas block.
Sounds like you're building exactly what I did a couple years back. Too bad you can't swap out the stock for better balance. I'm not familiar with CA law, are you not allowed to change the configuration at all?
wild_wild_wes
10-10-10, 18:08
Oh I can change the stock out no problem. In fact I have a UBR on hand (for a future AR10 build), but the dang thing seems too heavy for a 5.56 build. And, this being California and me with only three registered AW lowers, besides the Recon this lower will also host another upper based on a Noveske N4 16" CHF bartrel with DD M4 RIS II handguard, and I thought the UBR might un-balance it to the rear with that upper. But maybe the Noveske will not be as light as I am expecting it to be....
I will take your word for it about your experience with your Recon build as far as balance goes. So, you said the rifle was heavy as is, but would have preferred a heavier stock to balance the piece out, even though this would make it heavier overall?
Sounds like you're building exactly what I did a couple years back. Too bad you can't swap out the stock for better balance. I'm not familiar with CA law, are you not allowed to change the configuration at all?
He can swap and change to any stock he so desires in CA.
This. the Recce rifle has always been a "concept" with no strict definition. Generally, they have been a 16" match grade barrel with a longer handguard and a low profile gas block. I think the originals had a carbine length gas system, but that was likely a result of midlength gas tubes not being in the supply chain.
Umm... that's simply not true. Wes @ MSTN did work with/on many of the original Recce rifles. To say a Recce is a concept vs a specific configuration is to say an SPR is a concept and that's simply not true. A Recce is a specific rifle configuration, just like an SPR is a stainless-barreled 18" rifle with a rifle-length gas system.
I think the reason you find much more lateral variance on what constitutes a Recce is because there's virtually none to be seen/heard of. That still doesn't mean that any 16" rifle is a Recce, just like simply having an 18" barrel doesn't make a rifle an SPR. It goes so much on beyond that. Just because the commercial/civilian side of end-users couldn't find the official specs on what a Recce-rifle was doesn't mean the specs don't exist (as it's common-knowledge now as to the upper configuration).
A Recce is a 16" Stainless-steel barreled carbine. The barrel is a stainless Lilja blank, chambered by Compass Lake, with a carbine-length gas system, with a 1/8" twist, fitted with a KAC Flash Hider/QD Suppressor mount. That is what Crane determined to be the Recce setup, just like the SPR has a specific setup.
I think many people here either don't want to admit it themselves or are too afraid to hurt others' feelings in admitting that any gross variation is simply not the same gun anymore (which is all fine and dandy, but simply admit it). There's clones of the original weapon... and then there's commercial variations, but that's just it - they're commercial variations, not Recces. Sure, they might have been inspired by the original Recce, just like a Chevy truck might have been inspired by a Ford design, but they're different.
In regards to the actual concept you mentioned, the Recce concept was straightforward: a 16" build geared solely towards accuracy and being able to fire ANY 5.56mm round in inventory. If one is going to vary from the design specs but still try to follow a Recce concept, then they must adhere to the parameters: accuracy and round-compatibility. While your comments about Centurion barrels and other makes might be true, they directly defy the concept of the Recce. Chrome-lining any barrel degrades accuracy, so regardless of how "accurate" a chrome-lined barrel might be, it simply becomes an above-average m4gery and not a chrome-lined Recce.
To say that anything other than MSTN's "clone" is incorrect is a stretch IMHO. Monty from Centurion Arms carries a Mk 12 for a living and is very well versed in the history of the recce. He sells a 16" midlength for recce builds in fact. I don't think I would tell him that he is building them wrong.
You're buying into marketing. The truth of the matter is that chrome-lined barrels directly conflict with the Recce's mission statement. Period. Really, it can't be denied. Therefore, it doesn't matter how "great" a CL'd CM/V barrel is, it's no more of a Recce barrel than a 20", chrome-lined AR-15 upper is an SPR, regardless of accuracy. You seem to keep thinking that a Recce is a 16", sub-MOA upper. That's incorrect; a Recce is a 16" upper that's had every single aspect of it geared towards accuracy. Chrome-lined barrels directly defeat that design parameter.
This also isn't touching on the fact that chrome can and does flake/chip over time, allowing accuracy to "fall through" without any notice. This is another reason that chrome-lining is avoided whenever possible. The negatives (and potential negatives) of chrome-lining make it unsuitable for precision roles in ARs.
I'll refer to bkb0000's post. While I always thought that SS and "match grade" were synonymous, the Centurion barrels have made me rethink that. Monty has gotten moa or better from his CL CHF barrels at something like 600 or 800 meters. That is pretty damn match grade in my book. Additionally, they are lighter than a traditional SS match barrel, which was probably my only complaint against my Noveske recon barreled upper.
You're aware that Centurion, Noveske, and BCM CM/V chrome-lined barrels are virtually the same, correct? They all use the same blanks and the same chrome-lining process, and all of them are known for being sub-MOA. That still doesn't make them Recce barrels because the non-CL'd barrels from the exact same line would be more accurate. I don't think you're hearing your own argument: they're purposely degrading the accuracy of the barrels in the name of corrosion resistance and longevity. What part of that is a Recce barrel? There's isn't one. They're super-accurate M4geries.
I'll say it again: if there was one, single design parameter for the Recce, it would be maximum-possible accuracy. Chrome-lining purposely degrades accuracy in the name of longevity and corrosion-resistance. That completely defeats the purpose of the Recce design and therefore isn't one.
Anyways, my point isn't that you can't call something other than a Crane-built rifle a Recce; you can call the rifle anything you want. My point is that there's more to it than a list of items or simply a length; there's a goal that was to be accomplished. A Recce that's anything other than a match-grade 16" rifle (and everything that entails being "match-grade") isn't a Recce, it's a customized commercial AR-15 built to your own specifications.
I will take your word for it about your experience with your Recon build as far as balance goes. So, you said the rifle was heavy as is, but would have preferred a heavier stock to balance the piece out, even though this would make it heavier overall?
The upper I pictured earlier was nose heavy due to the barrel profile of the Noveske Recon. While heavier than your average carbine, more weight on the rear end would help balance the rifle better and make it feel less nose heavy. While the rifle would be heavier, it should handle a little better due to the improved balance. I would just encourage you to try a SOPMOD or ACS before swapping out to the UBR. Just give it a shot and see what feels better to you.
militarymoron
10-10-10, 20:49
back to pics - my 'recce'.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/militarymoron/emod14.jpg
Umm... that's simply not true. Wes @ MSTN did work with/on many of the original Recce rifles.
I wasn't aware of that. Did Wes work at Crane?
You're buying into marketing. The truth of the matter is that chrome-lined barrels directly conflict with the Recce's mission statement. Period. Really, it can't be denied. Therefore, it doesn't matter how "great" a CL'd CM/V barrel is, it's no more of a Recce barrel than a 20", chrome-lined AR-15 upper is an SPR, regardless of accuracy. You seem to keep thinking that a Recce is a 16", sub-MOA upper. That's incorrect; a Recce is a 16" upper that's had every single aspect of it geared towards accuracy. Chrome-lined barrels directly defeat that design parameter.
I was not referring to the Centurion CL CHF barrel. I was referring to this one, made from the same blanks as the real Mk12 barrels. The biggest difference is that his 16" recce barrels use a midlength gas system.
http://www.centurionarms.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_images.tpl&product_id=41&category_id=19&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=133
You're aware that Centurion, Noveske, and BCM CM/V chrome-lined barrels are virtually the same, correct?
Yes, I am aware.
They all use the same blanks and the same chrome-lining process, and all of them are known for being sub-MOA. That still doesn't make them Recce barrels because the non-CL'd barrels from the exact same line would be more accurate. I don't think you're hearing your own argument: they're purposely degrading the accuracy of the barrels in the name of corrosion resistance and longevity. What part of that is a Recce barrel? There's isn't one. They're super-accurate M4geries.
Maybe so, but they are still capable of similar accuracy as many SS barrels available to us today and are a good option for someone who wants to build a recce inspired rifle with less weight and greater durability without giving up much, if anything in accuracy. It may not bow at the altar of the Recce, but the performance can be very similar to a SS barreled upper.
back to pics - my 'recce'.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/militarymoron/emod14.jpg
i'm so pissed i forgot to do the vltor sight on my last build. i thoroughly intended to. :mad:
Umm... that's simply not true. Wes @ MSTN did work with/on many of the original Recce rifles. To say a Recce is a concept vs a specific configuration is to say an SPR is a concept and that's simply not true. A Recce is a specific rifle configuration, just like an SPR is a stainless-barreled 18" rifle with a rifle-length gas system.
I think the reason you find much more lateral variance on what constitutes a Recce is because there's virtually none to be seen/heard of. That still doesn't mean that any 16" rifle is a Recce, just like simply having an 18" barrel doesn't make a rifle an SPR. It goes so much on beyond that. Just because the commercial/civilian side of end-users couldn't find the official specs on what a Recce-rifle was doesn't mean the specs don't exist (as it's common-knowledge now as to the upper configuration).
A Recce is a 16" Stainless-steel barreled carbine. The barrel is a stainless Lilja blank, chambered by Compass Lake, with a carbine-length gas system, with a 1/8" twist, fitted with a KAC Flash Hider/QD Suppressor mount. That is what Crane determined to be the Recce setup, just like the SPR has a specific setup.
I think many people here either don't want to admit it themselves or are too afraid to hurt others' feelings in admitting that any gross variation is simply not the same gun anymore (which is all fine and dandy, but simply admit it). There's clones of the original weapon... and then there's commercial variations, but that's just it - they're commercial variations, not Recces. Sure, they might have been inspired by the original Recce, just like a Chevy truck might have been inspired by a Ford design, but they're different.
In regards to the actual concept you mentioned, the Recce concept was straightforward: a 16" build geared solely towards accuracy and being able to fire ANY 5.56mm round in inventory. If one is going to vary from the design specs but still try to follow a Recce concept, then they must adhere to the parameters: accuracy and round-compatibility. While your comments about Centurion barrels and other makes might be true, they directly defy the concept of the Recce. Chrome-lining any barrel degrades accuracy, so regardless of how "accurate" a chrome-lined barrel might be, it simply becomes an above-average m4gery and not a chrome-lined Recce.
You're buying into marketing. The truth of the matter is that chrome-lined barrels directly conflict with the Recce's mission statement. Period. Really, it can't be denied. Therefore, it doesn't matter how "great" a CL'd CM/V barrel is, it's no more of a Recce barrel than a 20", chrome-lined AR-15 upper is an SPR, regardless of accuracy. You seem to keep thinking that a Recce is a 16", sub-MOA upper. That's incorrect; a Recce is a 16" upper that's had every single aspect of it geared towards accuracy. Chrome-lined barrels directly defeat that design parameter.
This also isn't touching on the fact that chrome can and does flake/chip over time, allowing accuracy to "fall through" without any notice. This is another reason that chrome-lining is avoided whenever possible. The negatives (and potential negatives) of chrome-lining make it unsuitable for precision roles in ARs.
You're aware that Centurion, Noveske, and BCM CM/V chrome-lined barrels are virtually the same, correct? They all use the same blanks and the same chrome-lining process, and all of them are known for being sub-MOA. That still doesn't make them Recce barrels because the non-CL'd barrels from the exact same line would be more accurate. I don't think you're hearing your own argument: they're purposely degrading the accuracy of the barrels in the name of corrosion resistance and longevity. What part of that is a Recce barrel? There's isn't one. They're super-accurate M4geries.
I'll say it again: if there was one, single design parameter for the Recce, it would be maximum-possible accuracy. Chrome-lining purposely degrades accuracy in the name of longevity and corrosion-resistance. That completely defeats the purpose of the Recce design and therefore isn't one.
Anyways, my point isn't that you can't call something other than a Crane-built rifle a Recce; you can call the rifle anything you want. My point is that there's more to it than a list of items or simply a length; there's a goal that was to be accomplished. A Recce that's anything other than a match-grade 16" rifle (and everything that entails being "match-grade") isn't a Recce, it's a customized commercial AR-15 built to your own specifications.
As usual brother....we are 99% in total agreement and I must say the above bolt text straight up PEGGED IT imho.
Extreme match grade precision in an AR15 w. a 16" barrel is quite an intimating goal to shoot for and if achieved is quite the reflection on that particular AR's builder's prowess. I honestly have only seen a handful of true match grade 16" recce guns(seeing 10rd. sub moa groups and several diff. loads achieving that sub moa). Those two criteria that skyyr listed above are non debatable criteria in terms of application not specs......they absolutely have to be tack drivers that are not MOA shooters but clearcut sub moa shooters. Secondly, they have to shoot a bunch of diff. loads very accurate...unlike the current MK 12's that by in large never fire anything but mk262.
Again, no big deal if you are not at all recce spec'd as obviously there is a hundred other awesome and very useful diff AR configs. for diff. applications.....but these days the amt. of Artistic Licensing going on imho is getting ridiculous and I believe I will start calling my recce a SPR Lite or something:D
Failure2Stop
10-11-10, 04:08
The Seal Recon rifle was never type classified or assigned an official TDP as far as I am aware. All that was given was a concept statement of:
"Able to shoot any 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge in inventory (at the time this included the first iterations of the 77-grain (5 g) Mk 262 Mod 0 cartridge), and that the weapon have a barrel 16 inches (406 mm) in length."
Now, if you are trying to adhere to the specs of the rifle as built by Crane, yes there are some non-variable aspects such as the barrel, gas system, suppressor mount/FH, and upper receiver, and if one wants to clone a "Recce" rifle, he would have to use the same items. However, given the short list of "standard" items and the wide variance in every other component, with the lack of a TDP, the concept of the weapon is it's definition. There are items (such as a precision SS barrel) that preclude other choices due to their ability to conform to concept better than any other item.
With an M4 or an M4A1, I can pick up a TDP, read the list, and determine if the weapon in front of me meets those specs to be accepted as a military type-classified weapon or not. I can do that with any weapon in the US inventory, from the Mk17 to the MEUSOC .45. Without that ability, one has only a few examples as built (with varying components) and a concept of performance.
As long as it is 16" and turns in distinctly improved precision capability, it meets the intent. If I have an AR with a 16" CL barrel that meets the precision requirement, with an optic that lets me reach out to 600 meters in field conditions, it would be hard to argue that it isn't a "Recon" or "Recce" rifle. Now, if that same combination was a 3 MOA performer it certainly would not meet the intent, nor would it if it exactly matched a weapon as built by Crane.
That's why I say that it is more of a concept than an actual specific item.
The Seal Recon rifle was never type classified or assigned an official TDP as far as I am aware. All that was given was a concept statement of:
"Able to shoot any 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge in inventory (at the time this included the first iterations of the 77-grain (5 g) Mk 262 Mod 0 cartridge), and that the weapon have a barrel 16 inches (406 mm) in length."
Now, if you are trying to adhere to the specs of the rifle as built by Crane, yes there are some non-variable aspects such as the barrel, gas system, suppressor mount/FH, and upper receiver, and if one wants to clone a "Recce" rifle, he would have to use the same items. However, given the short list of "standard" items and the wide variance in every other component, with the lack of a TDP, the concept of the weapon is it's definition. There are items (such as a precision SS barrel) that preclude other choices due to their ability to conform to concept better than any other item.
With an M4 or an M4A1, I can pick up a TDP, read the list, and determine if the weapon in front of me meets those specs to be accepted as a military type-classified weapon or not. I can do that with any weapon in the US inventory, from the Mk17 to the MEUSOC .45. Without that ability, one has only a few examples as built (with varying components) and a concept of performance.
As long as it is 16" and turns in distinctly improved precision capability, it meets the intent. If I have an AR with a 16" CL barrel that meets the precision requirement, with an optic that lets me reach out to 600 meters in field conditions, it would be hard to argue that it isn't a "Recon" or "Recce" rifle. Now, if that same combination was a 3 MOA performer it certainly would not meet the intent, nor would it if it exactly matched a weapon as built by Crane.
That's why I say that it is more of a concept than an actual specific item.
F2S, thank you for so clearly stating what I have failed to communicate.
Pic in this thread, mid length 16" but we only made the barrels so I can't answer any questions about other parts
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=10551
There were also some real Recce barrels (16.5" not 16", carbine gas) made with a dimple opposite the gas port so at least some were designed for use with a LP gas block.
As for history this is my version, pieced together from several sources and a few observations.
The Recce was built because of a need for a light or M4 type sniper rifle. Built in small numbers and never type classified as far as I know.
SOCOM later ID'd the same need and rolled it into the SPR program. (my guess is that there was money still in the SPR program but the 7.62x39 AR was a bust)
Where it gets interesting is when the AMU wanted to build them and use fluted heavy service competition barrels. The users of the Recce were happy with it and didn't want the extra weight. The compromise is what became the MK12.(I don't have a direct source for all of this but: #1 the early MK12's had set screw adjustable front BUIS, and #2 look at the AMU built SDM-R.)
wild_wild_wes
10-11-10, 22:06
Extreme match grade precision in an AR15 w. a 16" barrel is quite an intimating goal to shoot for and if achieved is quite the reflection on that particular AR's builder's prowess. I honestly have only seen a handful of true match grade 16" recce guns(seeing 10rd. sub moa groups and several diff. loads achieving that sub moa). Those two criteria that skyyr listed above are non debatable criteria in terms of application not specs......they absolutely have to be tack drivers that are not MOA shooters but clearcut sub moa shooters.
Another complicating factor is that most people can't acheive that level of accuracy with a lower-powered optic, though the link that ToddK posted a few posts below shows that it can be done, and even out to 600m. This is relevant to my interests, since I will be using a 1-4X on mine.
Again, no big deal if you are not at all recce spec'd as obviously there is a hundred other awesome and very useful diff AR configs. for diff. applications.....but these days the amt. of Artistic Licensing going on imho is getting ridiculous and I believe I will start calling my recce a SPR Lite or something:D
To avoid offending anyone, I shall refer to my new rifle as a Recon, which is permissible because it will have a Noveske "Recon" barrel. It's either that, or a <Recce.
Recce glass is a great topic for discussion and while I have come to an concrete spec in that dept., I feel this is the one area that one has more liberty to pick and chose based on personal preferences.
I love idea of 1-4x's and love the baby nxs as well as my only current 1-4x type which is a tr-21(1.25x)....I just cannot get very much effective use out of it and little to none in terms of 100m plus precision accuracy. I would say personally 10x is my min. for precision applications but if I had leupy's instead of my NF's I would prob. lower that min. power to 8x or 9x.
I had always distinguished these guns into two variants if you want to call it...1.) Recce Rifle which is the one built purely for high precision...2.) Recon Rifle which opens the door to all types of things. These two sub categories could keep things a helluva lot easier to discuss and it allows some to be like the typical MK 12 spec nazi's and build the Recce's to as high of spec as possible and then less rigid builders who build solely on their personal preferences yet use the recce rifle as a broad template.
To avoid offending anyone, I shall refer to my new rifle as a Recon, which is permissible because it will have a Noveske "Recon" barrel. It's either that, or a <Recce.
When did the use of the term Recce become so damn strict? Call it whatever you want Wes. It's your $$ and it will be a very nice rifle for sure. Be sure to post up some range results and your impressions of the complete package when you get it done.
To avoid offending anyone, I shall refer to my new rifle as a Recon, which is permissible because it will have a Noveske "Recon" barrel. It's either that, or a <Recce.
Call it whatever you want, you know the intent/mission of the Recce and your rifle is being built to fit that same kind of role. I suspect there were very few real Recce's built and highly doubt the early ones were built with 12" rails, long handguards were not "in" when the Recce was first built. I also would not be supprised to see a newer one with a 12" rail, I've heard rumors that some shot out MK12's were rebarreled with Recce barrels.
Let the MK12 guys argue about who has the closest clone.
wild_wild_wes
10-12-10, 20:45
I've heard rumors that some shot out MK12's were rebarreled with Recce barrels.
EDIT: Like this one?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v317/M4Guru/CroppedSPR.jpg
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=10551
I wasn't aware of that. Did Wes work at Crane?
I was not referring to the Centurion CL CHF barrel. I was referring to this one, made from the same blanks as the real Mk12 barrels. The biggest difference is that his 16" recce barrels use a midlength gas system.
http://www.centurionarms.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_images.tpl&product_id=41&category_id=19&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=133
Yes, I am aware.
Maybe so, but they are still capable of similar accuracy as many SS barrels available to us today and are a good option for someone who wants to build a recce inspired rifle with less weight and greater durability without giving up much, if anything in accuracy. It may not bow at the altar of the Recce, but the performance can be very similar to a SS barreled upper.
However, that Centurion barrel you linked to weighs about the same as a Noveske Recon barrel (which is SS). Centurion has their barrel listed as 33.2 oz and Noveske has their Recon WITH gas block listed at 35 oz.
However, that Centurion barrel you linked to weighs about the same as a Noveske Recon barrel (which is SS). Centurion has their barrel listed as 33.2 oz and Noveske has their Recon WITH gas block listed at 35 oz.
Correct, that is the Centurion SS Recce barrel. The Recce and Noveske Recon are both SS, what's your point?
My bad, I misread and thought you meant that was lighter.
wild_wild_wes
10-24-10, 18:46
back to pics - my 'recce'.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/militarymoron/emod14.jpg
That looks like an 18" barrel.
The gods may be angry with you for calling it a Recce instead of an SPR....
Wes, have you decided on a configuration? Stock, barrel, optic, etc.?
wild_wild_wes
10-25-10, 21:28
Wes, have you decided on a configuration? Stock, barrel, optic, etc.?
I have the barrel- a Noveske Recon 16" SS. The optic will prolly be a Nightforce 1-4X, but I have a NF 2.5-10X32 on hand also, though it was intended for another rifle; I will shoot the completed build with both optics to see which works best for my needs.
The stock choise is more problematic....I was all set on the UBR, but I IM'd a member here who is an "end user" and this is what he had to say:
(me) If a heavier telestock like the UBR would help balance the rifle, would you accept the added weight? Which factor is most important to you- overalll weight, or balance?
(him) Weight is more important to me. As for balance- A 16" balances better for a collapisble stock, which most of us run. I can't think of any reason to purposly make anything heavier.
I have the barrel- a Noveske Recon 16" SS. The optic will prolly be a Nightforce 1-4X, but I have a NF 2.5-10X32 on hand also, though it was intended for another rifle; I will shoot the completed build with both optics to see which works best for my needs. Based on what I'e learned in this thread I will prolly go with the 12" handguard.
The stock choise is more problematic....I was all set on the UBR, but I IM'd a member here who is an "end user" and this is what he had to say:
(me) If a heavier telestock like the UBR would help balance the rifle, would you accept the added weight? Which factor is most important to you- overalll weight, or balance?
(him) Weight is more important to me. As for balance- A 16" balances better for a collapisble stock, which most of us run. I can't think of any reason to purposly make anything heavier.
As you have mentioned, the UBR is rather heavy. A SOPMOD might be a good compromise between weight & balance. I really like the sopmod over the CTR when using optics also.
wild_wild_wes
10-26-10, 21:46
Is there a Knowledge thread that lists the weights of the various stocks?
USMC03's writeup:
http://www.03designgroup.com/technotes/ar15-buttstock-considerations
Alaskapopo
10-27-10, 04:06
The trend for Recce rifles is to have 12" handguards, but have any of you guys here built one with a 9" handguard? This would still leave room for a standard rail cover, and a bipod mount.
I like a long hand guard so I can reach my support hand out there and control the rifle.
Pat
liberty057
10-27-10, 18:41
The difference in weight between a 9" and 12" rail is pretty minimal- the barrel nut and all that both weigh the same, and the aluminum used in the rail itself is very light. 12" rails on 16" barrels look the coolest, too, 10" on 12.5"-14.5", etc.
I have long arms, and tend to reach far out on the barrel to "drive the gun". Plus, I want the front BUIS and flashlight to be as far forward as possible. If you're dealing with barricades/support positions, more rail is generally better.
YMMV.
Very well said.
Centurion Arms Recce barrel with URX II rifle length handguard. I've got long arms and have found shorter rails just dont provide enough room particular when using bipod (which I do on the range and hunting).
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm176/mjmwestover/AR102710003.jpg
Centurion Arms Recce barrel with URX II rifle length handguard. I've got long arms and have found shorter rails just dont provide enough room particular when using bipod (which I do on the range and hunting).
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm176/mjmwestover/AR102710003.jpg
Pretty damn textbook if you ask me...job well done sir.
You used a LMT lower and KAC upper....I used a LMT upper and KAC lower:)
http://i54.tinypic.com/28klbpw.jpg
Pretty damn textbook if you ask me...job well done sir.
You used a LMT lower and KAC upper....I used a LMT upper and KAC lower:)
http://i54.tinypic.com/28klbpw.jpg
Very nice set up. I have an SBR set up just like yours and plans to start using MRP for more now that other barrels can be used in MRPs. Love the KAC lowers. BTW (not meaning to hijack) what lens covers are you using for your NF scope?
Centurion Arms Recce barrel with URX II rifle length handguard. I've got long arms and have found shorter rails just dont provide enough room particular when using bipod (which I do on the range and hunting).
http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm176/mjmwestover/AR102710003.jpg
I haven't seen much discussion on the Centurion Recce SS barrel. How does it shoot? Beautiful looking rifle man.
I haven't seen much discussion on the Centurion Recce SS barrel. How does it shoot? Beautiful looking rifle man.
Thanks. It's been great. The accuracy is very good. I had this rifle and a CA DMR 18 inch upper as well. But I found that the Recce was just as accurate as the 18 inch upper and lighter and easier to move around. Consequently, I no longer have the DMR but now have a second CA Recce.
In terms of accuracy, the CA Recce has been great. Using a Nightforce 10x at 100yds I've had 10 shot groups as small as .5 MOA and .7 MOA with the exception of two to three fliers due to operator error.
I have SR-15, 6920, LMT MRP all with standard barrels and the CA Recce is more accurate.
wild_wild_wes
10-27-10, 21:30
NF 1-4X?
Could be the discontinued 2.5-10x24
NF 1-4X?
Yes with the FC2 reticle. I like the reticle because it's a lot like a RDS but due to my own limitations I really only use this for 250 yds or less. But don't need much more than that in the jungles of Northern Virgnia.
My other Recce has a NF 2.5-10x24 different reticle. They are great scopes.
Here is the scope cover sizes:)
NXS 2.5-10x24: 13 EYE, 02A obj.
note...you might want to wrap a small bit of tape on the obj. for a really snug fit.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.