PDA

View Full Version : Battle for light precision supremacy: The Recce Rifle Vs. The SPR



Pages : [1] 2

ALCOAR
05-12-11, 06:22
.......

ALCOAR
05-12-11, 06:23
........

seb5
05-12-11, 07:20
Trident, Good work on an interesting topic. FWIW, Years ago I went through law enforcement basic sniper school and showed up with an AR., the only non bolt, non 7.62 in the class. The other students all chuckled. I had no problems on the quals, and we shot out to 600(not for quals). By the end of the class all of the other students weren't laughing anymore. I used a Krieger 20" tube JP trigger, Leupold, and BH 68 grainers. After the class I started using a few 18"s and finally settled on 16" as my standard for an 5.56 AR. For me other than the idea of having multiple carbines, which I do the 16" is all the length I need. I'm currently playing with a Crusader barrel and hope to have some data on that out to 300 shortly. I'm thinking about pulling the barrel as I'm not getting groups I think I shoud, starting from zero again.

As much as I apprreciate your work I wonder how the 14.5's and 12.5's would fare? I've found in my own shooting that the 14.5 seems very close to 400 and then tends to open up and am hoping the 12.5 will be good to 250-300. I've never used Rock's for AR's. How do they compare to Noveske or Krieger?

newyork
05-12-11, 07:50
Trident, great thread. Put together very well with a lot of thought and research/work as usual. I'm always watching your threads and amazed at your dedication. I'd like this thread to continue with different loads and distances comparing both rifles. Great shooting and rifles as usual.

rob_s
05-12-11, 08:29
So, you're reducing the definitions to distinctions between barrel lengths and minor difference in optics?

I ask because I've always been confused by these definitions and how they get thrown about, and how they relate to other common terms like "sniper rifle" or "DMR", etc. and I think that it appears that some people get hijacked by their perception of the definitions rather than application for their purposes. Some people (clearly not you since your rifles deviate pretty heavily from what I understand are the issued versions) get consumed by making replicas rather than tools.

Maybe a chart contrasting the two would help. :sarcastic:

For those of us not as steeped in this arena the distinctions become confusing.

Relative to the differences in optics, do you think that some shooters may do better with one optic/reticule type while others might do better with the other?

ALCOAR
05-12-11, 09:56
.......

jbo723
05-12-11, 10:29
Nice post Trident..I really like the "Ghey" Dirty Bird targets you used ;)

Warg
05-12-11, 10:48
Trident,

I appreciate what you’re trying to do here and those are beautiful rifles, however I’d like to comment on your implementation of the scientific method. For brevity, I won’t get too geeky here and won’t touch on sample size or proper methods for the design of experiments. Given a sample size of one per each configuration indeed one would want all control variables to be as similar as possible. You’ve stated as much, but what you’re comparing is the effect of two different barrel lengths with different muzzle devices and slightly different optics using “cherry” picked results.

The controls variables that are different are the optics, muzzle devices, and barrels. I don’t think the more compact NF would have any appreciable effect on results (save a slightly narrower FOV and less light transmission), particularly at 100y. We know that barrel characteristics can have an effect on precision, but different muzzle devices can have an effect too, though it may be minor.

I’d recommend making your comparison rifles as similar as possible (if that’s your intent) by losing the muzzle devices or using the same MDs and comparing all groups or random samples of your groups.

Just some suggestions, again, I think threads like this can be informative.

Littlelebowski
05-12-11, 12:13
I think there is no argument over "Recce" vs "SPR" except barrel length.

Many tactical precision shooters are moving to shorter barrels.

vinsonr
05-12-11, 13:19
Trident,

I appreciate what you’re trying to do here and those are beautiful rifles, however I’d like to comment on your implementation of the scientific method. For brevity, I won’t get too geeky here and won’t touch on sample size or proper methods for the design of experiments. Given a sample size of one per each configuration indeed one would want all control variables to be as similar as possible. You’ve stated as much, but what you’re comparing is the effect of two different barrel lengths with different muzzle devices and slightly different optics using “cherry” picked results.

The controls variables that are different are the optics, muzzle devices, and barrels. I don’t think the more compact NF would have any appreciable effect on results (save a slightly narrower FOV and less light transmission), particularly at 100y. We know that barrel characteristics can have an effect on precision, but different muzzle devices can have an effect too, though it may be minor.

I’d recommend making your comparison rifles as similar as possible (if that’s your intent) by losing the muzzle devices or using the same MDs and comparing all groups or random samples of your groups.

Just some suggestions, again, I think threads like this can be informative.

The only difference at that point is muzzle velocity and the resulting ballistics. His topic is about two different concepts of rifles, not comparing two barrel lengths on the same rifle otherwise.

ALCOAR
05-12-11, 14:44
........

HaydenB
05-12-11, 15:11
Sweet thread! Lots of great info. I WANT TAP T2 SO BAD!!!:mad:

hikeeba
05-12-11, 16:16
Battle for light precision supremacy: The Recce Rifle Vs. The SPR

Summary: Both rifle concepts can be plenty good in the accuracy department.

Conclusion: Both rifle concepts can be plenty good in the accuracy department.

Winner: Both?

;)





Maybe a chart contrasting the two would help. :sarcastic:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b349/_hikeeba_/Gun%20stuff/accuARthechartv2.jpg

That's the best I could do in a hurry with my tongue firmly planted in my cheek.




In all seriousness, I do appreciate your detailed insight, Trident. I find the Recce and SPR concepts quite interesting, and I look forward to reading more about your comparative findings between your two rifles. And those are mighty fine rifles.

DeusExMachina
05-12-11, 16:20
Hi hikeeba! ;)

You forgot carbine (Recce) vs. rifle (SPR) length gas systems.

Warg
05-12-11, 16:27
The only difference at that point is muzzle velocity and the resulting ballistics. His topic is about two different concepts of rifles, not comparing two barrel lengths on the same rifle otherwise.

1. Trident's comments on control variables is more apropos an experimental comparison rather than a conceptual comparison, particularly given point #2 below. At any rate, my primary issue with the results is the cherry picking among the groups.

2. With regard to the comparing concepts, what's the real difference other than barrel length given this modern interpretation of these two configurations? That is, I would expect those concepts to resemble the traditional configurations if that's the intent (admittedly this is difficult given all of the variations of SPRs and Reeces). For example, doesn't the SPR employ a OPS Inc brake, Douglas barrel, KAC 2-stage trigger, etc?

I'm not criticizing what Trident is trying to do, just making some suggestions.

hikeeba
05-12-11, 17:18
Hi hikeeba! ;)

You forgot carbine (Recce) vs. rifle (SPR) length gas systems.

Howdy to you!

I was trying to make a chart that outlined the two different general concepts as simply as possible. I didn't want to get all knit-picky about the 'finer' details. The gas systems can fall under 'Other components.'

newyork
05-12-11, 17:30
Not a concern of Trident's or mine but...does the 18" barrelled SPR offer any advantage in terms of killing/wounding potential (lack of better words) at longer distances? Would that lead the military to choose the longer bbl for extended shots at range or is that where another caliber comes into play (.308)?

TehLlama
05-12-11, 19:44
If simplifying the difference between the Recce and SPR is as simple as 2" of barrel, and comparing apples to apples, the biggest two differences are muzzle velocity and weight - which are not all that different practically speaking.
Another part of the equation will be if the rifle is going to be ran suppressed - weight and length of the suppressor in question is likely to change the handling characteristics more than the barrel itself is going to.

What I'm looking at right now is adding a Recce unit to my existing Mk12/DMR upper, but trying to make this Recce unit a do-all rifle by installing a 1-8x SB optic, Scout Light, and throwing that upper on a Noveske FFL with UBR/GSSA. I would swap between an OPS 14th and M4S, the latter keeping the OAL of the recce still shorter than a Mk12, and providing some sound reduction.

Since so little shooting on the civilian end involves anything beyond 600m, I don't see how the Recce isn't the better choice against paper, and I'd still make an argument that same net weight against same net weight, the shorter lighter Recce affords for better, larger glass up top.

As great as the Mk12 was among military weaponry because it had innovative parts like 2-Stage trigger, free floated handguard, OPS suppressoor; that doesn't mean it's the superior option among groups not restricted by NSN's or type classification, so this is why the Mk12 may be common, but never superseded the Recce.

ALCOAR
05-12-11, 20:06
......

Abraxas
05-12-11, 20:18
Hi hikeeba! ;)

You forgot carbine (Recce) vs. rifle (SPR) length gas systems.

My Recce is a middy not a carbine gas system;)

ALCOAR
05-12-11, 20:27
........

Warg
05-12-11, 21:32
Not a concern of Trident's or mine but...does the 18" barrelled SPR offer any advantage in terms of killing/wounding potential (lack of better words) at longer distances? Would that lead the military to choose the longer bbl for extended shots at range or is that where another caliber comes into play (.308)?

This is a good question, particularly in light of newer loadings, more portable rifles and improved optics.

Take a look at the ballistics table below using MK262 round in 16" vs 18" BBL. The MVs were obtained using chrono data from the Hide and entered into JB Ballistics. Rock's barrels may differ from this, but probably not appreciably so.

http://i304.photobucket.com/albums/nn176/Dr_Wolfenstein/ARs/SPRvReeceballistics.jpg

At 500 yards the delta in energy is only 34 ft lbs, decreasing to 6 ft lbs at 1000y. The bullet goes subsonic right at 800y in the 16" and 830y in the 18" (not shown in the table). There's obvioulsy more drop from the 16", but nothing a good optic and shooter couldn't overcome. In effect, they're very damn close.

Given the above, I'd easily go with the lighter 16" Reece, but FWIW, I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to take down a BG with < 500 ft lbs of energy at 500+ yds. Then again, I'm not a sniper ;)

EDIT ABOVE- forgot to mention that the ballistics data were derived at sea level, 59 degrees, 29.92 pressure, yada yada. Speed of sound, trajectory, etc will vary with changes in pressure, temp and altitude.

Silver_2325
05-12-11, 21:37
This is possibly the coolest most informative thread I have ever read. Congrats, you win the internet.

strambo
05-12-11, 23:19
I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to take down a BG with < 500 ft lbs of energy at 500+ yds.Well, if you have a need to engage at that range...you don't have to drop them with the immediacy required when they are across the room.

Eliminating their ability to hit you back at 500 and taking them out of the fight is sufficient.

Sure, bigger is better, but a 5.56 to the torso out to 800 will probably render them combat ineffective at least.

shootist~
05-12-11, 23:48
Trident,

Good shooting.

Another interesting thing to look for when you get a chronograph is the relative differences in velocity between the SS barrels and chrome lined barrels.

You might see more difference than common wisdom would indicate. In my very limited testing, I see a full 100 fps difference, +/- very little, between a 16" Noveske N4 CL barrel and an 18" Noveske SPR barrel. I've seen similar results in one thread somewhere, btw - his included Mk262; mine is with a 77 gr SMK reload. Possibly something unique to Noveske's SPR, but maybe not. BTW, the N4 barrel's velocity is pretty standard, based on a comparison to some posted results from others.

If this carries over in a similar way to the 16" SS vs 16" CL, or the more relevant standard M4, it would mean the Reece has more going for it than just accuracy.

Silver_2325
05-13-11, 00:03
Well, if you have a need to engage at that range...you don't have to drop them with the immediacy required when they are across the room.

Eliminating their ability to hit you back at 500 and taking them out of the fight is sufficient.

Sure, bigger is better, but a 5.56 to the torso out to 800 will probably render them combat ineffective at least.

Well said. And if they dont immediately go down they are surely moving slow enough for a double tap.

ALCOAR
05-13-11, 00:12
......

MistWolf
05-13-11, 01:16
It's not the sub-sonic range that kills long range accuracy, it's the trans-sonic range, where the bullet is travelling just at the speed of sound. This is where the most turbulence is encountered. Some parts of the airflow will be sub-sonic while another part will be supersonic. This is where the boat-tail really earns it's keep, getting the bullet through the trans-sonic range more smoothly. Once the bullet drops to sub-sonic velocities, it's flight path once more becomes smooth.

So in reality, the maximum effective range for precision isn't where the bullet drops to sub-sonic velocities, it's where it drops to transonic velocities. Bullets launched at subsonic speeds remain stable and accurate until they lose enough velocity to fall out of the sky or lose enough RPM to start wobbling

ALCOAR
05-13-11, 03:56
........

hikeeba
05-13-11, 08:13
Good stuff, Trident. Hope you have fun shooting today!

mkmckinley
05-13-11, 09:17
Nice project. Im looking forward to seeing your results. I'm guessing there's not going to be that much difference between the barrel lengths. If you want to get a good accurate velocity reading without messing with a chrono you might consider Atragg software. It runs on a PDA or I think there's an iPhone version. It calculates MV based on bullet drop and has been pretty damn accurate in my experience. You can also have it build a MV curve based on atmospherics.

Here's something to consider when getting wrapped up on the specific definitions of these rifles. Terms like SPR, DMR, recce etc seem to have somewhat different definitions on the internet and in the military. On the internet they seem to describe semi-specific builds. In the military, at least within my experience, the terms are used to describe weapon employment as well as the weapon itself. I've heard a Mk 17 with a Nightforce mounted on it described as an SPR: an automatic mid range rifle. The M110 is also kind of an SPR. The sniper qualified guys are generally given some leeway to decide what they want to use as an "SPR". Likewise a DMR is just a fire team or squad organic mid range rifle. It could be a M14 for instance. Not teying to get off topic, just food for thought.

Anyway great project. Should be fun.

Warg
05-13-11, 09:28
It's not the sub-sonic range that kills long range accuracy, it's the trans-sonic range, where the bullet is travelling just at the speed of sound. This is where the most turbulence is encountered. Some parts of the airflow will be sub-sonic while another part will be supersonic. This is where the boat-tail really earns it's keep, getting the bullet through the trans-sonic range more smoothly. Once the bullet drops to sub-sonic velocities, it's flight path once more becomes smooth.

So in reality, the maximum effective range for precision isn't where the bullet drops to sub-sonic velocities, it's where it drops to transonic velocities. Bullets launched at subsonic speeds remain stable and accurate until they lose enough velocity to fall out of the sky or lose enough RPM to start wobbling

I realize that, hence my use of "goes subsonic". That point on the ballistics chart can be used as a rough guide to indicate the transonic envelope. Since this thread is in the General Discussion section that point is certainly worth mentioning, however.

I am still surprised at the 30 yard difference between the two.

ALCOAR
05-13-11, 12:47
........

Warg
05-13-11, 12:56
Nice shooting! Thanks for the viddys too.

Are the OnTarget calculated MOA results based on 100Y or your 267?

vicious_cb
05-13-11, 16:01
Honestly, the difference is what you make it. I can put some high power glass and a bipod a on 16" SS barreled upper and call it an SPR or I can put a 1-4x scope and vertical grip on a 18" SS barreled upper and call it a Recce.

ALCOAR
05-13-11, 17:18
.......

Cameron
05-13-11, 18:09
Nice rifles and a good thread. I think because the "Recce" was a "concept" of a "sniper M4" rather than the SPR that had a specific component list, it makes it harder to get the differences.

I really don't see much of a difference between a 16" and 18" rifle with comparable barrels. The difference is really more in the optics. I like the "concept" of a Recce that has the low power variable (although there are a lot of new scopes out now that run from 1 mag to 10 mag) allows the shooter to use the 16" for a close range weapon easily and then switch to enough magnification to make hits at range.

Apples to apples I really don't think that a 16" vs. 18" with the same magnification scope are significantly different.

My idea was to have an 18" SPR with a long(er) range scope, in this case a 4.5-14 Leupold MK4 and a 16" Recce with a mid range scope, in this case a 1.5-5 Leupold MK4.

Bravo Company 18" SPR and Daniel Defense 16" Recce
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1132/5134174023_5f8436c7e2_b.jpg

With these two, really the optics make the difference. You could literally (and I have) switch the scopes and not really be able to tell the difference between them.

It is interesting what Kyle Defoor said about the two, in another thread here.


The original whatever you want to call them- Recces, SPRs, MK 12s (we usually just say "sniper M4") had a 16" barrel, Leupold 2.5-10 and a PRI foregrip. They were first used operationally in '93 in Somalia by our guys that were attached to our Southern brethren.

It went to 18" quite frankly because the big Army got involved. Most of us that have a lot of time on one (myself included) think that 16" is better for a number of reasons;
1. 2" does make a difference especially with a can.
2. weight (it's not pounds at this stage it's ounces) and remember that balance has a factor here too.
3. I've shot both together on the same range at the same time. I don't really care what charts and scientists say, me and mine can hit just as good with 16" as 18".


After owning and shooting both a lot, I think Kyle is right the 16" Recce is a more practical rifle than the 18" SPR.

Regards,
Cameron

newyork
05-13-11, 18:37
Nice rifles and a good thread. I think because the "Recce" was a "concept" of a "sniper M4" rather than the SPR that had a specific component list, it makes it harder to get the differences.

I really don't see much of a difference between a 16" and 18" rifle with comparable barrels. The difference is really more in the optics. I like the "concept" of a Recce that has the low power variable (although there are a lot of new scopes out now that run from 1 mag to 10 mag) allows the shooter to use the 16" for a close range weapon easily and then switch to enough magnification to make hits at range.

Apples to apples I really don't think that a 16" vs. 18" with the same magnification scope are significantly different.

My idea was to have an 18" SPR with a long(er) range scope, in this case a 4.5-14 Leupold MK4 and a 16" Recce with a mid range scope, in this case a 1.5-5 Leupold MK4.

Bravo Company 18" SPR and Daniel Defense 16" Recce
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1132/5134174023_5f8436c7e2_b.jpg

With these two, really the optics make the difference. You could literally (and I have) switch the scopes and not really be able to tell the difference between them.

It is interesting what Kyle Defoor said about the two, in another thread here.



After owning and shooting both a lot, I think Kyle is right the 16" Recce is a more practical rifle than the 18" SPR.

Regards,
Cameron

Interesting. Great quote. Nice rifles Cameron...as usual. Great thread you have here Alex and all involved

nimdabew
05-13-11, 18:43
Thanks pal....as for question, what part of "bubba operation" do you not understand...?:D

To be honest, Ive always used the simple method of subtracting one MOA for each additional 100yds in target distance, perhaps completely ignorant..but then again I rarely shoot groups at any distance other than 100yds.

So basically if I shot a group at an even 300yds, and it measured say 3.25 moa according to the traditional 100yd MOA...I would subtract 2 MOA from that total and say that I shot a 1.25 moa grouping. I tallied them up again according to the specific 267yds and I instantly became a better shooter...sweet:sarcastic:


This really isn't how a minute of angle works. A minute of angle is the same arc length at any given distance in degrees, or 1/60 of one degree (one minute of one degree). The actual measurement comes out to 1.024 inches at 100 yards, but simplified it is 1 inch at 100 yards. One minute of angle at 800 yards is roughly 8 inches in diameter, center of bullet to center of bullet.

shootist~
05-13-11, 20:14
We had a rare spring day with decent wind conditions for a change. I made it out and chronographed some Mk262 as well as my 77 gr reload.

Temp: Low 60s
Altitude: 5,000
Wind: Crossing to quartering, mostly 5-10 mph.
10' from a PACT Chronograph

BH Mk262: (Red Box)
18" Noveske SPR Barrel Cold/Dirty Bbl.
Rainer Comp, 13" VTAC XTR Rail. (This is a build, not a complete rifle). 9 shots fired. 10 intended, but user error or the Chronograph start/stop leads caused an no-read on #1.

Avg - 2,814 fps
H - 2,833
L - 2,783
SD - 15.9


Mk262: (Red Box)
14.5" DD LW Barrel Cold/Dirty Bbl.
Rainer Comp, 11" Troy XTR Rail.

Avg - 2,672
H - 2,682
L - 2,655
SD - 11.9

18" Noveske SPR Barrel Cool/Dirty Bbl.
77 grain SMK Reload (24.0 TAC in 2nd loaded LC brass.)

Avg - 2,674
H - 2,702
L - 2,643
SD - 16.2

The 77 gr SMK reload in the SPR bbl at 711 Yds (650 Meters):
1st was windage shot (a miss off the right edge) then the next 8 of 9 were hits on my 12"x18" pistol gong. Fired from a concrete bench using an Atlas Bi-pod. No butt bag.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y141/shootist87122/AR15/Targ-650M18SPR77SMK2674-LC051311.jpg

ALCOAR
05-13-11, 20:29
.......

FromMyColdDeadHand
05-13-11, 21:47
Surprised I'm not seeing more T-1s in offset mounts on these rifles.

I wonder if the 1-8/10 scopes will blur the differences between these two roles, since it seems the optic and purpose is as important as the gun underneath. The ability to go up close and reach out in the same optic would to me make the difference of 2inches on the barrel less significant.

How do the timeliness for the development of the SPR and Reece overlap?

I think the major thing is that the raw capabilities overlap so much and this causes the back and forth on them. The best points I can think of to show the non-commonality would be to take the extremes of a 3-15/50mm scope and a T-1. In my mind the scope on an SPR and a T-1 on a Recce would not be out of place, but reverse the scopes and that would just be weird.

I have a n-4 light Novekse Reece, a BCM 16'Middy-SS and a 18inch JP and they all have their places. And like my kids, I won't tell you which one I love best.

Cameron
05-13-11, 21:53
Cameron...you been MIA pal, this thread screams your name...I remember your set was just finishing up when I was mid way done with my pair. Your def. an OG on this topic...I can attest to that fact.

I took a vacation and caught the last few months of the southern hemisphere summer in New Zealand...

Piha Beach and Lion Rock
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3435/5717724414_ae812dbee4_b.jpg


While there is very little real world difference between an 18" and a 16" or even a 16" and 14.5" for that matter. Like FromMyColdDeadHand said for the discerning shooter it is the subtleties that set different weapons apart, and make a collection worth wile, other wise it would suck and we would all only have 16" ARs!!

The 18" and 16" are very close, the 16" and the 14.5" are very very close, about the only difference is the 10.5" SBR. I have found that it is really the optics, barrel quality and trigger that actually effect practical accuracy rather than 1 or 2 inches more or less of barrel.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5137523886_010994f673_b.jpg

I think that is why my picks for the most useful or practical AR15s are the 16" mid length with a mid range variable optic and the 10.5" SBR with a red dot. I've made good hits out to 800yds with the 16" and it's 5 power scope.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5405316136_c4d9c9391a_b.jpg


I wonder if the 1-8/10 scopes will blur the differences between these two roles, since it seems the optic and purpose is as important as the gun underneath. The ability to go up close and reach out in the same optic would to me make the difference of 2inches on the barrel less significant.


I got to play with a March 1-10x24 (http://marchscopes.com.au/tactical-1-10-x-24-scope.html) recently and I think the 16" Recce with a true 1 to 10 power scope would be the best all around set up, and would beat out the SPR for the battle for light precision supremacy.

Cameron

Scoby
05-13-11, 21:54
Trident - Great thread! Definitely a shooters thread.

Never get tired of seeing those two rifles. The Colt Recce inspired my Noveske build which is a great shooter.

As a shooter, the question about the "cherry picking of targets" got me thinking. The only way to remove the human factor of this evaluation is to bolt down the rifle in a rest. This then removes the human factor but then removes the fact that some days shooting are better than others. Mine are anyway.

Damn good shooting brother.

Got a question. Why the affinity for FF 12" plus rails? Stability?

Scoby
05-13-11, 22:00
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/5137523886_010994f673_b.jpg
Cameron

Awsome collection of ARs.

rauchman
05-13-11, 22:19
Amazing thread. Thank you.

This thread has me rethinking my desire for an SPR type rifle.

QuietShootr
05-13-11, 22:25
Thanks pal....as for question, what part of "bubba operation" do you not understand...?:D

To be honest, Ive always used the simple method of subtracting one MOA for each additional 100yds in target distance, perhaps completely ignorant..but then again I rarely shoot groups at any distance other than 100yds.

So basically if I shot a group at an even 300yds, and it measured say 3.25 moa according to the traditional 100yd MOA...I would subtract 2 MOA from that total and say that I shot a 1.25 moa grouping. I tallied them up again according to the specific 267yds and I instantly became a better shooter...sweet:sarcastic:



Huh??

FromMyColdDeadHand
05-13-11, 23:54
Amazing thread. Thank you.

This thread has me rethinking my desire for an SPR type rifle.

An SPR might not make the best first upper or rifle, but they are enjoyable to shoot. With a suppressor or a good brake, the ease of shooting a rifle length operating system with a tweaked in PRS stock trully makes me giddy. I'd want an SPRish 308AR if someone were shooting back, but for ringing steel there is nothing like a well put together SPR. Calling your own shots, cheap ammo, and easily 1moa accuracy- what's not to like. With a 3-15scope, running head and CNS shots on steel out to 400 yards makes for a well spent afternoon.

d90king
05-14-11, 06:35
Huh??

More like WTF?

sjohnny
05-14-11, 07:26
Am I missing the difference between these two guns other than the barrel length?

RustedAce
05-14-11, 07:40
Nevermind he has a BDC reticle.

ALCOAR
05-14-11, 07:52
........

Wormydog1724
05-14-11, 07:56
If you go by your original post, isn't 3 MOA at 300 really like 3" at 100? Not 1 MOA at 100. 3 MOA. 3 MOA at 300 is 3 MOA at 100. Or any distance for that matter. Presumably your group will get bigger the further you go out. Or smaller the closer in. But not by subtracting MOA's.

1 MOA at 300 is 3" at 300. 3 MOA at 300 is 9" at 300.
1 MOA at 100 is 1" at 100. 3 MOA at 100 is 3" at 100.

Am I wrong here? (I know they're approximates)

sjohnny
05-14-11, 08:00
If you shot a 3.25 inch group at 300 yards rather than subtracting you would divide that group size by (roughly) 3. Your 3.25" group at 300 yards would be roughly 1.08 MOA.
The longer your range the more the numbers after the decimal make a difference in your true MOA measurement.

sjohnny
05-14-11, 08:01
Evidently it's barrel length and optics. With the optics really being of the same magnification but with different reticules and some other minutia.

In other words, no. :sarcastic:

That's what I thought.

Wormydog1724
05-14-11, 08:02
He didn't say "3.25 INCH group". He said "3.25 MOA group"

newyork
05-14-11, 08:08
If you shot a 3.25 inch group at 300 yards rather than subtracting you would divide that group size by (roughly) 3. Your 3.25" group at 300 yards would be roughly 1.08 MOA.
The longer your range the more the numbers after the decimal make a difference in your true MOA measurement.

this is what Trident was trying to say (i think). I don't think he was showing off either. I don't get where the negativity came from in this thread all of a sudden.

d90king
05-14-11, 08:11
Here is the first grade level explanation:

MOA: 1"@100yds 2"@200yds 3"@300yds 4"@400yds 5"@500yds 6"@600yds etc... If you are shooting the above groups you are shooting roughly 1MOA.

newyork
05-14-11, 08:26
I understand MOA but will be the 1st to say I'm a beginner. I wasn't dazzled, just thought I could learn something in this thread and gain perspective. I didn't think this thread was supposed to be for his personal fame, nor was it to be the gospel or taken so seriously.

Wormydog1724
05-14-11, 08:34
I don't fully understand MOA and I do like fancy expensive guns. But his "subtracting MOA's from MOA's" was just plain wrong.

ETA: I don't understand how one thinks that shooting 3 MOA (which is 9"~) at 300 is the same as or can be thought of as shooting 1 MOA (1"~) at 100. I dun get it.

newyork
05-14-11, 09:00
I don't fully understand MOA and I do like fancy expensive guns. But his "subtracting MOA's from MOA's" was just plain wrong.

ETA: I don't understand how one thinks that shooting 3 MOA (which is 9"~) at 300 is the same as or can be thought of as shooting 1 MOA (1"~) at 100. I dun get it.

I must have missed that. That's just wrong.

Luke_Y
05-14-11, 09:35
OK, TRIDENT82 posted the targets from a 267 yd rapid fire group. The software had calculated the group size as 3+ MOA...


Nice shooting! Thanks for the viddys too.

Are the OnTarget calculated MOA results based on 100Y or your 267?

gfelber points out that the software was set to a range of 100 yards...


Thanks pal....as for question, what part of "bubba operation" do you not understand...?:D

To be honest, Ive always used the simple method of subtracting one MOA for each additional 100yds in target distance, perhaps completely ignorant..but then again I rarely shoot groups at any distance other than 100yds.

So basically if I shot a group at an even 300yds, and it measured say 3.25 moa (via the software set @ 100)according to the traditional 100yd MOA...I would subtract 2 MOA from that total and say that I shot a 1.25 moa grouping. I tallied them up again according to the specific 267yds and I instantly became a better shooter...sweet:sarcastic:

...snip... *red text above is mine

So my comprehension is; TRIDENT82 chooses to leave his software defaulted @ 100 yds because he rarely shoots groups past there.

He mentally adjusts the results for whatever range he shot the group. His mental method of doing so (3.25-2) is a lazy method. But perhaps the precise method (3.25/3.14) would require a calculator and he doesn't want to bother.

If he routinely does so he will be cheating himself out of (I know I'm too lazy to get out a calc and extrapolate) .25-.50 min but, fairly consistently so.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think TRIDENT82 understands MOA. And while I do find his lack of precision in computing such in a thread about precision ironic, some of the response seems a bit harsh.

As far as the thread intent goes. I took it as TRIDENT82 setting out to answer for himself (rather than reading about it) whether there is a meaningful ballistic difference between a 16" Recce and an 18" SPR. With the hypothesis that the differences would not be meaningful in ballistics, but more-so be down to optics/mission what have you.

He wanted to see for himself, and document doing so. And we all know TRIDENT82 is nothing if not enthusiastic. :p I don't see the big deal, it is in AR GD after all.

Wormydog1724
05-14-11, 09:46
That makes a little more sense I guess. Still confusing that way but whatever. Unsub'd.

newyork
05-14-11, 09:48
OK, TRIDENT82 posted the targets from a 267 yd rapid fire group. The software had calculated the group size as 3+ MOA...



gfelber points out that the software was set to a range of 100 yards...



So my comprehension is; TRIDENT82 chooses to leave his software defaulted @ 100 yds because he rarely shoots groups past there.

He mentally adjusts the results for whatever range he shot the group. His mental method of doing so (3.25-2) is a lazy method. But perhaps the precise method (3.25/3.14) would require a calculator and he doesn't want to bother.

If he routinely does so he will be cheating himself out of (I know I'm too lazy to get out a calc and extrapolate) .25-.50 min but, fairly consistently so.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think TRIDENT82 understands MOA. And while I do find his lack of precision in computing such in a thread about precision ironic, some of the response seems a bit harsh.

As far as the thread intent goes. I took it as TRIDENT82 setting out to answer for himself (rather than reading about it) whether there is a meaningful ballistic difference between a 16" Recce and an 18" SPR. With the hypothesis that the differences would not be meaningful in ballistics, but more-so be down to optics/mission what have you.

He wanted to see for himself, and document doing so. And we all know TRIDENT82 is nothing if not enthusiastic. :p I don't see the big deal, it is in AR GD after all.

thank you for sorting this out in such a good way. Trident knows what he's talking about and is always trying hard to improv3 his ability. Attacks on him in this thread are unfounded and ridiculous.

Spooky130
05-14-11, 10:15
I just wish those who can make snide comments pointing out others lack of knowledge would take the few extra moments to educate us all. Sometimes we don't know what we don't know. That would be a good thread.

That being said a clear misunderstanding of the fundamentals definitely detracts from ones credibility...

Scoby
05-14-11, 10:22
Where in the hell does it state in the rules you can only contribute to threads that have content you like in them? When did M4c turn into some kind of ****ing social club? It's a technically minded DISCUSSION forum. And discussions by default have people of differing opinions - or were you just coming here to jerk off your playmates?

Trident has good intentions and piss-poor methodology and math. He got called on it. I'm pretty sure it's sorted now... All the fanboys can crawl back under their rock.

Where did I say he had to like it or agree with it? Don't try to put words in my mouth.

Contributing to a thread doesn't mean you have to agree with everything. If you don't, just post what you believe is the facts or your opinion.

Instead of correcting something he believed was incorrect, he came in this thread being an asshole which by all indications is his MO. Apparently yours as well.

seb5
05-14-11, 10:37
I think everyone needs to take a breath and relax, it's the internet. FWIW I read Tridents post and took it primarily as an accuracy determination of his 16" and 18" carbines only. I saw the ranges and errors and went hmmm, typo or misunderstanding, either way, it was the possible advantages of 18" over 16" that got my attention as I've never felt the desire for an 18" gun in 5.56.

We've all posted and later realized we stepped on ourselves, so what. I also believe that as decent , courteous members all of us could at times show a little more tact towards each other, especially to those learning and attempting to contribute in a positive manner. I can't understand it when people act as if they are somehow increasing their stature by insulting ot belittleing other members. I've seen in over the years in the military and law enforcement and generally kept my distance from those people because when it comes down to it they tend to only be interested in promoting thmeselves versus helping others or contributing to the job at hand.

Trident, keep on learning and testing, I'll read them.

jonconsiglio
05-14-11, 11:01
I don't understand why people are arguing and some defending the OP, let him speak for himself here.

I think some of the stuff may have been said in a tougher way, but I think, and I can't speak for Rob, but it seems as he may be basing his opinion on a whole lot more than just this one particular instance.

One mistake or something misspoken can easily be excused. A history of nonsense and being a fanboy with no real knowledge or experience to back up claims cannot be excused. This is not directed at anyone, just what I see a lot of people getting most upset about lately.

I'm not at all saying that is or isn't the case. I'm just saying that I don't think Rob got fired up over a singular instance that could have been a mistake.

Again, I'm speaking generally here as to what I've seen in the way of reactions. I'm not siding either way in this one as I think the thread has quickly headed south and that in and of itself is becoming all too common.

ETA - forgetting all the negative comments, I'd like to see a 10.5" mixed into the group just to see where the accuracy similarities start to change the most. I have a few precision guns but no dedicated precision AR at this time. I'd like to pick up another soon, either the 14.5" or 16". If I do an 18" it'll be a MK12 type gun as the one I had before was a nice shooter and I like the idea of clones if you have enough to fill the roles for you that are most important.

d90king
05-14-11, 11:05
OK, TRIDENT82 posted the targets from a 267 yd rapid fire group.

Are you saying that the pictured groups were a result of the linked videos?

I was under the impression that he was simply trying to show the lack of recoil if you were to load your bi-pod properly?

Luke_Y
05-14-11, 11:10
... Maybe someone can get this back on track.

Nah, this one is toast. It's Saturday and the mods are sleeping in or out shooting. But you can bet nothing constructive will follow. Soon to be locked. ;)

Luke_Y
05-14-11, 11:15
Are you saying that the pictured groups were a result of the linked videos?

I was under the impression that he was simply trying to show the lack of recoil if you were to load your bi-pod properly?

I thought that they were (and was sort of impressed) as they followed the videos, but going back and reading that appears to be my mistake. It reads more like 2 separate things.

Either way my point was that 267 or whatever is written on the targets and in the text, but the software box says 100, and thats where all this started.

d90king
05-14-11, 11:26
I thought that they were (and was sort of impressed) as they followed the videos, but going back and reading that appears to be my mistake. It reads more like 2 separate things.

Either way my point was that 267 or whatever is written on the targets and in the text, but the software box says 100, and thats where all this started.

That was my impression also... The targets say 287yds on them so maybe he just miss typed 267yds from his laser. :confused:

Scoby
05-15-11, 11:21
Even though it has been explained here, for those that still do not understand the concept of minute of angle, here it is in a graphic form. Maybe this will help.

http://i830.photobucket.com/albums/zz229/Scoby/MOA.jpg

shootist~
05-15-11, 13:03
And to go a little further, since 1 MOA at 100 Yds is actually 1.047"; that 5" group at 500 Yds is actually 5/1.047 and divided by 5 = .96 MOA.

Warg
05-15-11, 13:16
And to go a little further, since 1 MOA at 100 Yds is actually 1.047"; that 5" group at 500 Yds is actually 4.775 MOA.


?

Shouldn't a 5" group at 500 yards= 0.96 MOA?

That is MOA = (inches * 100) / (1.047* distance in yards)

shootist~
05-15-11, 13:42
?

Shouldn't a 5" group at 500 yards= 0.96 MOA?

That is MOA = (inches * 100) / (1.047* distance in yards)

Correct - I meant to indicate less that 1 MOA.

rezin23
05-15-11, 13:54
Does anyone make a lightweight Afgan barrel?

Warg
05-15-11, 14:24
Does anyone make a lightweight Afgan barrel?

Not that I'm aware. Buy a lightweight 16" like a Noveske and have Adco cut it down. Cheaper than buying the 14.5 and having it reprofiled.

Scoby
05-15-11, 16:02
And to go a little further, since 1 MOA at 100 Yds is actually 1.047"; that 5" group at 500 Yds is actually 5/1.047 and divided by 5 = .96 MOA.

That is technically correct. I tried to keep the chart in the simplest form.

To actually shoot a MOA grouping at 100 yards and converting that into MOA at 500 yards without actually doing it, is theoretical, and may or may not be correct.

seb5
05-15-11, 16:10
Does anyone make a lightweight Afgan barrel?

The additional weight of an Afghan combined with a Troy Extreme rail will surprise you by it's lack of weight. If I was dead set on a 14.5" LW barrel with a bit of additional accuracy potential I would look at the Centurion LW hammer forged barrel. It surprises me regularly. It is a definite improvement over my other barrels, which include DD, and BCM's, some ofrged, some not.

It's for a seperate post but I am wondering how the Centurion compares to the new LW from Larue or the LW S.S. noveske.

TehLlama
05-17-11, 00:49
I haven't had any luck locating Molon's definitive post on here of some various barrel weights (it's an amazing one... just need to find it), but the added weight of the medium contoured 16" Recce compared to the M4 profiled recce is pretty slight. I'm really curious how much the dimpling I've seen on various Recce units would further cut into that.

I wonder if Trident would be interested in an experiment - trying to see (at his farthest range) which setup works best for him at a given weight cap (16" with the 32mm objective optic, and 18" with the 24mm)

Surf
05-17-11, 04:12
I stayed on the side with this one but I will contribute with both positive info and constructive criticism. I have shot consistently with an 18" rifle on 18x30 steel with almost boring consistency out to 920 yards but would still opt for a 16" barrel if I were to do a build today. Not sure what the result differences would be, but I would love to see it, even with a 14.5" barrel. I do appreciate the effort put forth in this thread, but it does seem a bit big for its britches.

Since the OP welcomes brutally honest feedback, when I watch the video's and others on the youtube channel, I am more bothered by the poor trigger finger placement and the slapping of the trigger than the MOA discussion. We could always improve our results, dramatically in many cases if we learn and use a good trigger pull, especially with magnification and precision. This is why I think that learning proper trigger techniques on a USGI type trigger and mastering it before putting in $200 triggers in all of our rifles is a good idea. Why have a slick trigger and not know how to use it to its fullest advantage? Beautiful hardware! But the software needs a few upgrades. :p

Again damn nice rifles! There that should distract from the MOA discussion. :jester:

Oh and I hope we don't argue minute of angle vs minute of arc. :D

Scoby
05-17-11, 05:17
Oh and I hope we don't argue minute of angle vs minute of arc. :D

Me either because I know nothing much about it, but if someone wants to explain it, Im all ears. :D

Lost River
05-17-11, 14:44
Trident,

Thank you for your efforts.

Do not worry about the critics.

C-grunt
05-17-11, 16:12
I think comparing a Recce and a SPR based on the rifle specs is an error. I have always viewed these two rifles as weapons purposely built to meet two different ideas.

The Recce rifle is supposed to be a weapon that you can clear a building with and then provide cover and security from the rooftop. Thus it has a shorter barrel and a lower powered variable optic. I believe the newer Afghan concept rifle might actually be a better Recce than the Recce.

The SPR is supposed to be a dedicated longish range sniper type rifle. It has a higher powered optic and a longer barrel for more muzzle velocity, more accuracy and more range than the standard carbine.

These two rifles will have A LOT of overlap in their deployment with the Recce being better for close range and the SPR being better for the outer edge of the 5.56s range.

ALCOAR
05-22-11, 11:22
It's officially on like donkey kong(knock on wood:D)...I think you guys can expect some real deal long range videos and evaluations in the coming weeks, including at least one dedicated eval and video to shooting these guns @ exactly 1000yds:cool:

I rigged up a special LR target cam that is attached to a 20x spotting scope and already I can say that the upcoming "vapor trail" footage will be something to behold. I cannot get enough of watching my rounds "vapor trail" onto the target at these extremely long distances.

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/IMG_4934-1-1.jpg

Youtube video: MRP SPR w. Rock 18" 5R SS shooting @ 680 yds

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uww-saeQkLw

slomo
05-22-11, 12:02
With all of the high class toys you have there is no excuse for you not to have a good chronograph. They're not that expensive.

MistWolf
05-22-11, 17:30
Man, Trident. I want to come play in your yard

Scoby
05-22-11, 17:59
You're having way too much fun. I'm on standby for the 1,000 yd shots.

By the way, is that your new property? :D

shootist~
05-22-11, 18:43
Aim high is all I can say. :) For Mk262 at 2,800 fps you are looking at ~ 42 MOA from a 100 Yd zero. Plus you will go sub-sonic at around 900 Yds.

ALCOAR
05-23-11, 12:56
.......

SMGLee
05-23-11, 13:22
make sure you buy plenty of those bolts that hold the target to the stands. we build several versions with that kind of set up, no matter what bolt you use, it will not last a day's session without one of them breaking from a 5.56 round hitting it. since then we have moved away from using bolts to hold the target onto the stand all together.

Cameron
05-23-11, 13:24
since then we have moved away from using bolts to hold the target onto the stand all together.

So what do you use now?

Cameron

gunrunnerusmc03
05-23-11, 13:25
I'm with Lee on this one. You will eat those carriage bolts up pretty fast.

Don Robison
05-23-11, 14:54
So what do you use now?

Cameron


I use 1/4" "S" hooks on my steel. When they get shot it take about 2 seconds to put a new one on and no tools are needed. I buy bags of 6 at Lowes for $3-4.

ALCOAR
05-23-11, 16:32
.......

DMR
05-23-11, 21:19
I've been meaning to comment on this thread for awhile. To many projects and not enough time.

I wanted to comment on one of your early remarks and attempt to further explore some surronding issues. Hopefully with out derailing this thread.


I have no clue how they decided to evolve and pick the SPR..now MK12 over the Recce Rifle, I strongly came to the conclusions that the Recce in concept/design was a superior pick over the longer and heavier SPR/MK12 when comparing as many apples to apples...oranges to oranges. That should hopefully clarify why things were controlled, yet obviously not in a true scientific manner given the parameters of each unique designed rifle could not afford that.

A hell, I had a bunch of contracting constraints BS i was going to talk about, but since I wasn't there screw it. The base line is whats the issue rifle that you are attempting to improve upon. If a unit is most commonly using the MK-18 then their going in perceptions of the Recce, vs. the SPR will be slightly differant than a unit using primaily M-4A1's.

Just say it can be hard to explain to a lay person (read contracting officer or General officer) why a 16" barrel is so much better than a 14.5"(if your runing M-4A1's). A 18" sort of makes sence to them even if they don't realy understand all the details.

Any how I'm looking forward to the rest of your testing. If I had an Afghan to loan you I might. Closest I have is a Noveske Light Carbine with VIS. It may show that the Afgan concept: high qualtiy barrel, free floated, good optic and a good trigger employed with match grade ammo by a well TRAINED user is all we realy need.

ALCOAR
05-23-11, 21:30
.....

DMR
05-24-11, 05:40
:o
Plenty of better qualified folks then me. Thanks though.

Turnkey11
05-24-11, 07:06
I think there is no argument over "Recce" vs "SPR" except barrel length.

Many tactical precision shooters are moving to shorter barrels.

Exactly, you wont notice the distinction until you start moving with the rifle, taking it in and out of vehicles, going through a mout site, etc. Both will shoot nearly identical, but neither of these rifles are built to be stationary platforms.

rauchman
05-24-11, 07:22
Thanks DMR for making a presence in this thread, anything you have to add or say will always have merit in this thread considering I believe there are few others who understand this whole arena of light precision AR's, and their applications in the field better than you.

If folks really care to explore much deeper into the dynamics of what the thread has at it's core, read the following super thread:
https://www.m4carbine.net/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=864897

I hand picked this huge bit of info that DMR replied with in a post in the above linked thread......

Me thinks your link is not quite right.

Also, outstanding thread. THANK YOU!!!

ALCOAR
05-24-11, 07:29
.........

shootist~
05-24-11, 09:04
There is probably not enough weight difference to be significant in this case, but I find that "light" and "precision" don't go so well together. A rifle with a little heft makes for a more stable shooting platform.

ALCOAR
05-24-11, 09:20
.........

ALCOAR
05-25-11, 20:08
........

An Undocumented Worker
05-25-11, 20:53
You plannin on holding any range days at your backyard? Looks like a solid setup.

jwfuhrman
05-26-11, 13:57
I was seriously just about to post and what kind of target stand you came up with Trident.... when low and behold, you took pictures.

I ordered one of those same targets on Tuesday, it came today.

Will DEFINITELY be ordering from them again, as I want a couple more of these to put at various distances.

Cincinnatus
05-26-11, 15:13
I am interested to see this new target in action and also how the wooden frame holds up.
Gongs I have used have been home-made affairs my father and I welded together. We use steel frames, and even those get a little chewed up after a while from fragments and misses (I know, I know--don't miss). I suppose it's easy enough to replace parts of the frame as needed.

d90king
05-26-11, 15:23
That looks like a great deal on the steel target. Nice work on the stand for it, let us know how it holds up after some use. At that price it seems to be a no brainer.

SMGLee
05-26-11, 15:26
Trident, everything from the carriage bolt to the hangers, those items you don't want bullet impact will sooner or later get hit. especially if you host a range day with 10 + shooters banging it away...buy plenty of spare carriage bolts.

Belmont31R
05-26-11, 15:46
I haven't had any luck locating Molon's definitive post on here of some various barrel weights (it's an amazing one... just need to find it), but the added weight of the medium contoured 16" Recce compared to the M4 profiled recce is pretty slight. I'm really curious how much the dimpling I've seen on various Recce units would further cut into that.

I wonder if Trident would be interested in an experiment - trying to see (at his farthest range) which setup works best for him at a given weight cap (16" with the 32mm objective optic, and 18" with the 24mm)


Every barrel is different, and the effect of dimpling or fluting depends on how the barrel was made and the individual barrel. If you take a barrel with a lot of stress in it, and then dimple it you'll get inconsistent results once it heats up and warps oddly. Thats why it pays to get quality stuff and buy from people who use the best.

Belmont31R
05-26-11, 15:49
I stayed on the side with this one but I will contribute with both positive info and constructive criticism. I have shot consistently with an 18" rifle on 18x30 steel with almost boring consistency out to 920 yards but would still opt for a 16" barrel if I were to do a build today. Not sure what the result differences would be, but I would love to see it, even with a 14.5" barrel. I do appreciate the effort put forth in this thread, but it does seem a bit big for its britches.

Since the OP welcomes brutally honest feedback, when I watch the video's and others on the youtube channel, I am more bothered by the poor trigger finger placement and the slapping of the trigger than the MOA discussion. We could always improve our results, dramatically in many cases if we learn and use a good trigger pull, especially with magnification and precision. This is why I think that learning proper trigger techniques on a USGI type trigger and mastering it before putting in $200 triggers in all of our rifles is a good idea. Why have a slick trigger and not know how to use it to its fullest advantage? Beautiful hardware! But the software needs a few upgrades. :p

Again damn nice rifles! There that should distract from the MOA discussion. :jester:

Oh and I hope we don't argue minute of angle vs minute of arc. :D




You don't learn to put with a 2x4.

Surf
05-26-11, 20:48
You don't learn to put with a 2x4.I don't see how your analogy pertains in any way to what I had to say and the points that I raised?

Belmont31R
05-26-11, 20:50
I don't see how your analogy pertains in any way to what I had to say and the points that I raised?



I don't see what the point of starting someone off with the crappiest trigger out there. A person can learn bad habits learning how to shoot with a 10lb trigger.

Surf
05-26-11, 21:15
I don't see what the point of starting someone off with the crappiest trigger out there. A person can learn bad habits learning how to shoot with a 10lb trigger.Sure anyone can learn bad habits, or not learn how to initially operate a trigger no matter what trigger we use. However a "10lb trigger" will force you to become more aware of all of your fundamentals as you will have a greater chance of disrupting your weapon and you will be forced to put far more focus on the actual trigger manipulation / trigger pull in order to achieve great hits. Essentially it will force a shooter to maintain very strict adherence to their breathing and their sight alignment / sight picture as a more difficult trigger will force us to concentrate hard on all of our fundamentals throughout the trigger pull process.

I guarantee you that someone who is a great shooter with a USGI trigger will be a far better shooter on a match trigger than a person who cannot shoot a USGI trigger for crap. Or if I am a very good putter with a 2x4 I bet the chances that I will be a phenomenal putter with a top of the line putter over someone who cannot put with a 2x4, so I guess your analogy has merit, kind of.

I also note that the OP has been a staunch supporter of an aftermarket trigger such as the Geissele line up in pretty much all rifles as the claim being that it will make someone a better shooter. Ironically from watching some of his video's on his channel, he is very lacking in his trigger work. He runs a weapon decent but he could be waaaay farther ahead of where he is now if he learned how to properly manipulate the trigger.

He asked for brutally honest advice and I gave him one thing that I think can really help him elevate his shooting skills. When we are shooting out to long distances with precision weapons and optics a very good trigger manipulation will make a huge difference. I don't think I was being an ass, but actually gave a honest critique.

FWIW I like a high quality trigger on my precision weapons. He does not have to change but he definitely will see dividends paid if he works on his trigger manipulation. I am not saying this about the OP but far too many people short change themselves by using a slick trigger as a crutch to make up for improper fundamentals. They are opting for instant improvement and satisfaction when in reality they are often doing themselves more harm than good in the long run. Again anyone who is great with a crappy USGI, will invariably be better than someone who could never shoot it well.

YMMV

Edit - Good luck with the testing and eval. I think I will graciously bow out of this one.

Belmont31R
05-26-11, 21:31
A better trigger allows someone to see their potential and you have a baseline for improvement. If you start someone out on a crap gun they are going to get crap results no matter how good they are, and that is really discouraging.



Ill tell you how I started shooting. I shot bb guns and pellet guns around my house. We lived on ranch houses where everyone had 3-10 acres of land, and most of my neighbors had horses. One neighbor grew mini eucalyptus trees. One of my neighbors dogs got loose, and tore up one of our chickens. I dispatched the chicken with the dog owner's gun, and after that he taught me how to shoot. I started shooting his 22's around our properties at squirrels, targets we setup, ect. I had a baseline of accuracy the guns were capable of so judge against myself. I wasnt handed the shittiest gun in the world and told it would make me a better shooter. If I shot his 10/22 at 50 yards at only got a 2" group I knew it was me. Not the gun. No one is going to learn shit with a gun that is terrible accuracy wise, and USGI triggers are simply not reliable enough in the feel department to teach someone on. When I went to boot camp I out shot 99% of the people there. I never learned on a horrid trigger.


This lesson was reinforced when I got into trap shooting, and learned the importance of break and lock time. A shitty trigger with a slow lock time can make or break a shot. I didn't get good until I started shooting guns with good triggers, and I wasted about 2 years shooting shitty guns.


A new shooter is going to be nothing but bummed out because they cant hit a target or group poorly because they are fighting a 8-10lb trigger. They can have all the other fundamentals down, and still shoot poor because of the trigger. A crap trigger is better left to an experienced shooter to fight not a newbie.

Surf
05-26-11, 23:03
Thanks for your opinion. I don't wish to side track the OP's thread any further.

jwfuhrman
05-27-11, 08:34
damn there is a lot of hostility on this site anymore. There are multiple forms of disciplines when it comes to shooting. Which is why we have multiple different FORUMS on here that revolve around different types of builds.

JSantoro
05-27-11, 09:09
Somebody only just now decided to hit the Report Post button?

You freakin' guys... I don't know which is worse, the folks that simply can't stop themselves from pissing in somebody else's corn flakes, or the ones that think that their scathing commentary is the same as a shut-off valve.


"*submit* There, that'll learn 'im.....hey, WTF, he's posting again!?!? Did he not read my last oh-so-clever post in regard to his last oh-so-clever post? The NERVE...!"
Jerks.

This is gonna take a minute or two. Stand by.

EDIT: Shit-ass posts, or the posts of anybody that quoted a shit-ass post under the false auspices of somehow "helping," have been deleted. Moved and re-opened.

Everybody take note of THIS:


Nah, this one is toast. It's Saturday and the mods are sleeping in or out shooting.

...and yet a search of the Reported Post archive folder on my Gmail account in no way contains a Reported Post notification from YOU. Chew on that for a moment; see if it tastes as ****ed up to you as it does to me.

Jake'sDad
05-28-11, 00:39
Thanks for this thread Trident. Great information!

A 14" or 16" Recce with bonded ammunition would take care of 90%+ of LE "sniping" needs.

Instead, most are using 26" bolt .308's for 50 yard +/- shots.

Belmont31R
05-29-11, 17:19
Thanks for this thread Trident. Great information!

A 14" or 16" Recce with bonded ammunition would take care of 90%+ of LE "sniping" needs.

Instead, most are using 26" bolt .308's for 50 yard +/- shots.




The bolt action has been the defacto standard for decades because up until the last 'few' years there has never really been cost effective semi autos with both the reliability, accuracy, and parts support to make someone want one over a bolt gun. Now they are gaining a lot of market share. Theres no way most PD's could afford the HK PSG-1, and KAC guns were rare and expensive, too. Now we have more choices than ever, and Ive never seen as many people as now using gas guns for precision work.


Two areas Id like to see more development in is 6.5MM and 300 & 338 gas guns. Both rounds are more effective than 308 for precision LR work by far.

Jake'sDad
05-29-11, 17:47
The bolt action has been the defacto standard for decades because up until the last 'few' years there has never really been cost effective semi autos with both the reliability, accuracy, and parts support to make someone want one over a bolt gun. Now they are gaining a lot of market share. Theres no way most PD's could afford the HK PSG-1, and KAC guns were rare and expensive, too. Now we have more choices than ever, and Ive never seen as many people as now using gas guns for precision work.


Two areas Id like to see more development in is 6.5MM and 300 & 338 gas guns. Both rounds are more effective than 308 for precision LR work by far.

My point was really mainly to the barrel length and LE. Even in a bolt gun, an 18"-20" would serve the purpose far better than the 26's that most are shooting. I tried making that point about 25 years ago, when I brought my 18" Remington 600 .308 to training and outshot most of the guys with it.

Belmont31R
05-29-11, 18:07
My point was really mainly to the barrel length and LE. Even in a bolt gun, an 18"-20" would serve the purpose far better than the 26's that most are shooting. I tried making that point about 25 years ago, when I brought my 18" Remington 600 .308 to training and outshot most of the guys with it.



Well there have been a lot of assumptions made in the gun circle for decades, and growing up 20" or less barrels on bolt guns were always "brush guns" meant for 100 yards or less. Not serious guns even for hunting outside of bush whacking.


I personally think over 20" on a 308" is useless since when you see any gains for the added length you're already getting poor results from the 308 (in comparison to other calibers), and its diminishing returns for tons of extra weight and bulk.


In the testing KAC did between the EMR and EMC there was less than 100 FPS difference between the two despite 4" of barrel difference. This is because 308 burns most of its powder charge by 16" of barrel.

trinydex
05-29-11, 18:28
The bolt action has been the defacto standard for decades because up until the last 'few' years there has never really been cost effective semi autos with both the reliability, accuracy, and parts support to make someone want one over a bolt gun. Now they are gaining a lot of market share. Theres no way most PD's could afford the HK PSG-1, and KAC guns were rare and expensive, too. Now we have more choices than ever, and Ive never seen as many people as now using gas guns for precision work.


Two areas Id like to see more development in is 6.5MM and 300 & 338 gas guns. Both rounds are more effective than 308 for precision LR work by far.
Can the bolt gun really be replaced by semis though? The semis are bigger and heavier would they be practical to lug around?

d90king
05-29-11, 18:37
Can the bolt gun really be replaced by semis though? The semis are bigger and heavier would they be practical to lug around?

Most bolt guns are far heavier than gas guns in my experience. My 20" is still 10lbs with glass and pod, and its a shorty in the bolt family...

Belmont31R
05-29-11, 18:59
Can the bolt gun really be replaced by semis though? The semis are bigger and heavier would they be practical to lug around?





The M40A5 is around ~14lbs. A quality gas gun like the MWS, EMC, and OBR are around 8-10lbs.

trinydex
05-29-11, 19:48
Most bolt guns are far heavier than gas guns in my experience. My 20" is still 10lbs with glass and pod, and its a shorty in the bolt family...

10 pounds including glass and pod is pretty light no? If that 20" were cut down to 18" itd be lighter still. How much is a typical precision 308 with glass weighing in?

Cameron
05-29-11, 21:49
I just got back from the range today. I was getting dope for a new load out of my Bravo Company Mk 12 and Daniel Defense Recce, and I have to say I still think the 16" Recce with the mid range glass makes the most sense for a "Light Precision" rifle.

I was the only one at the range so when I went downrange to change targets I was leaving a couple of rifles and ammo behind. Each time I walked downrange I took the Recce with the 1.5-5 optic and left the Mk 12 and the Mk 18 behind. I suppose that proves I feel the most capable rifle is the Recce....

Cameron

FromMyColdDeadHand
05-30-11, 23:11
I just got back from the range today. I was getting dope for a new load out of my Bravo Company Mk 12 and Daniel Defense Recce, and I have to say I still think the 16" Recce with the mid range glass makes the most sense for a "Light Precision" rifle.

I was the only one at the range so when I went downrange to change targets I was leaving a couple of rifles and ammo behind. Each time I walked downrange I took the Recce with the 1.5-5 optic and left the Mk 12 and the Mk 18 behind. I suppose that proves I feel the most capable rifle is the Recce....

Cameron

Where did you go that you had it alone on a Sunday?

HaydenB
05-31-11, 01:39
How much is a typical precision 308 with glass weighing in?

Usually in the 10 to 14 lb range.

K Town
06-05-11, 13:43
Looking at both the Recce and SPR as mid to long range rifles with the possible use at close range (Inside 100 yards), would a 1x4 power optic be enough to engage targets at lets say, 600 yards?

(Please forgive my ignorance on the subject of long/extreme range.)

ALCOAR
06-05-11, 15:39
.........

shootist~
06-05-11, 16:32
Looking at both the Recce and SPR as mid to long range rifles with the possible use at close range (Inside 100 yards), would a 1x4 power optic be enough to engage targets at lets say, 600 yards?

(Please forgive my ignorance on the subject of long/extreme range.)

Absolutely, although 6x or more on the high end would be significantly better. Glass quality, reticle choice and availability of either BDC or Turret adjustments are major considerations.

Scoby
06-09-11, 12:07
If I knew that there would be a possibility that I would encounter an enemy in different types of environments, urban, wooded and open ground, then I would definitely grab the Noveske with the 1.5 x 5. Decent for close in shots and does well out to 4-500 yds.

What would be better yet is a 1 x 8. Just can't afford one right now.

Jake'sDad
06-10-11, 14:33
Sure wish Trijicon would hurry up and get into the 1-6 or 1-8 game.

ALCOAR
06-10-11, 15:07
.......

Jake'sDad
06-10-11, 19:28
If I bought an optic today it would be a March 1-10x...that said, NF will continue to get my coin.

Interesting. I hadn't seen that scope before. What do they sell for?

ALCOAR
06-10-11, 20:11
........

Belmont31R
06-10-11, 20:14
Does that scope have the old style focus mechanism of turning the entire rear bell and then tightening the ring against the bell?

FromMyColdDeadHand
06-10-11, 20:24
I haven't seen it listed anywhere, is that SFP or FFP?

ALCOAR
06-10-11, 20:24
......

Jake'sDad
06-10-11, 20:38
I notice they offer a "FML" reticle on some of their scopes.

Lost River
06-10-11, 22:12
To the OP,

FYI,

I found that the ideal general purpose optic for me while working for a number of years in Iraq was an illuminated 1.5-5 Leupold in a Larue mount, on my M4A1 . I deliberately chose the VX3 version instead of the MKIV due to the fact that I did not want the exposed turrets of the MKIV. I did not want to have a turret to get accidentally turned and lose a zero. Covered, protected adjustments made more sense on this type of rifle.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/Sanitized8venueDec01006.jpg

I kept it on its lowest power setting generally, and shot with both eyes open, much like a RDO. When I needed more precision, I could simply dial up. It proved to be a very practical optic and held up to a lot of rough handling, in and out of vehicles and constantly getting banged around.


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/SanitizedJan0608.jpg


http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/sanitizedIPmc.jpg

ALCOAR
06-10-11, 22:23
.......

Jake'sDad
06-10-11, 23:08
Lost River, I also appreciate you weighing in, along with Trident's usual wealth of information.

Which reticle did you use in that VX-3? Did you feel the 1.5X was a limitation at all as opposed to a true 1 power?

Lost River
06-10-11, 23:36
Trident,


For specifically a lightweight precision 5.56 rifle I would prefer a 16" tube with a mid length gas system. 7 twist barrel to shoot 77 grain SMKs (MK262)with a medium contour.

Many of the barrels on the SPRs are in my view too heavy. Great for a range rig, but when you are loaded down with body armor, various mags, radio, blowout kit, etc, and it is 120 degrees, a lighter rifle is a good thing. It is too easy to become overloaded with kit.

I would specify a slim handguard such as the VTAC. I would prefer it to be smooth, only having rails where attachents are needed.


Optics wise, a 2.5-10x24 or 2.5-10x32 Nightforce Mil/Mil or Moa/Moa (shooters choice) would be ideal.

I prefer a Larue mount, simply for the fact that I have had excellent luck with them holding zero and the light weight factor.

As far as triggers go. I would rather have a little heavier two stage (4#s) trigger that is 100% reliable under all conditions, than a 2.5 crisp match trigger that sometimes doubles. Reliability rules the day.

Pictured is a rifle that I built that is very close. It is 18"s. Chop 2"s off the barrel and substitute the IOR 2.5-10 with a NightForce and call it good. The barrel is a 7 twist WOA.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/001-8.jpg



On a seperate note:

The 14.5" Colt M4A1 is not a problem for manuevering in and out of armored vehicles and your typical middle eastern dwellings with practice.
With practice, shooting at ranges measured in feet rather than yards or meters, is not difficult with a scope(such as the Leupold 1.5-5) set on 1.5x once you become accustomed to it. It is simply another skill set.

Many people who attend a lot of "gunfighter" schools will tell you that you cannot make fast and accurate hits at close quarters with such an optic. I usually just grin, nod and carry on. It is not worth even arguing with them.

Lost River
06-10-11, 23:42
Lost River, I also appreciate you weighing in, along with Trident's usual wealth of information.

Which reticle did you use in that VX-3? Did you feel the 1.5X was a limitation at all as opposed to a true 1 power?

I used the simple duplex reticle, though I would like to try their circle dot reticle.

I did not find the 1.5x a hinderance at all as compared to a true 1x. I have also used that optic at home on personal ARs to hunt coyotes with.

I have shot numerous coyotes (as well as jackrabbits) at full speed and at 1.5x it has a great field of view and making fast hits on fast moving targets is not a problem.

Cameron
06-10-11, 23:51
That's good to see the Leupold 1.5-5 served you well in the sand box. I have been using one here for awhile and found it to be a very good scope when poncing around the range or skipping through the meadows...

Did you use it for long(er) range targets? If so did you use reticular holders since you didn't have the BDC turrets?

I have the MKIV version with the BDC turrets and they have worked well out to 800yds on a 16" carbine. I found timing the splits that I was within 1 or 2/100 of a second off the time with the same setup using an EOTech. I haven't found the 1.5 to be really any hindrance versus a RDS.

Here is my Recce type with the Leupold MKIV 1.5-5
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2775/5798103852_27f3a58174_b.jpg

Cameron
06-10-11, 23:56
Many people who attend a lot of "gunfighter" schools will tell you that you cannot make fast and accurate hits at close quarters with such an optic. I usually just grin, nod and carry on. It is not worth even arguing with them.

Thanks for the info Lost River, when I attended a recent "gunfighter" school my buddy ran the Leupold 1.5-5 on his 16" and posted some of the fastest times in the close range drills in the class beating most of the guys with the red dots.

Cameron

ALCOAR
06-11-11, 00:09
......

Lost River
06-11-11, 00:12
Trident,

Just for clarification, to make sure there is no miscommunication.

I was describing (as you asked) a lightweight precision rifle.

For an individual doing PSD work that is getting in and out of armored Suburbans and Land Cruisers 20 times a day, negotiating crowded stairwells, hallways and such, a bit smaller weapon such as the M4A1 is a bit handier.

Slightly different animals.

As far as getting into and out of vehicles with long guns, that is simply a matter of practice. It is easy to say, but takes some practice in execution to perform properly. Like everything else, to do it quickly and smoothly requires practice. Guys working PSD deploy with SAWs constantly out of heavily loaded vehicles. It is simply a matter of developing a skill set and configuring vehicles to meet your needs.

In regards to shooting my 1.5-5 leupold at longer distances: I have shot it out to 500 on 1/2 sized IPSC steel targets, using the duplex reticle. It is not as precise as dialing for a shot, but for its intended purpose it will hold "Minute of Haji" groups with a little practice.

ra2bach
06-13-11, 11:34
I used the simple duplex reticle, though I would like to try their circle dot reticle.

I did not find the 1.5x a hinderance at all as compared to a true 1x. I have also used that optic at home on personal ARs to hunt coyotes with.

I have shot numerous coyotes (as well as jackrabbits) at full speed and at 1.5x it has a great field of view and making fast hits on fast moving targets is not a problem.

the only issues the 1-4 has over a RDS is eye alignment. shooting from non-traditional positions such as supine is slower to the point that it might require removing the stock from the shoulder...

ALCOAR
06-14-11, 10:12
........

BaileyMoto
06-17-11, 16:43
Not to derail this thread or anything, but rounding MOA down to 1" at longer ranges can (and will) cause a whole lot of confusion when one starts missing targets at 1000 yards. The difference between dialing 1 MOA vs 1" "clicks" at 1000 yards gets quite large. :)

To the OP: Very nice setups. Also, are those simply P&S digi cams setup on spotting scopes? If so, what method are you using to attach them?

shootist~
06-17-11, 18:50
What's 4.5" at 1,000 Yds amoungst friends? :D

IMO, 1,000 Yds with a 16 or 18" AR is probably a bridge too far anyway. I would love to be wrong on that, however.

ALCOAR
06-17-11, 22:22
......

BaileyMoto
06-17-11, 23:11
What's 4.5" at 1,000 Yds amoungst friends? :D

IMO, 1,000 Yds with a 16 or 18" AR is probably a bridge too far anyway. I would love to be wrong on that, however.

Almost 5x that amount with, say, a .308 (or the 77gr .223 for that matter). Rounding MOA to inches would be adjusting almost 20" too much in either direction.


I actually think you've been right all along shootist about 1k w. a .223. No question you can hit a target at 1k but what the hell is it doing when it gets there.

Definitely get those videos! I'm with you, completely possible and many have done it. It has a very similar trajectory to the .308 and might even still be supersonic depending upon your elevation and muzzle velocity. I know at sea level JBM suggests it drops to subsonic speeds, but at my elevation it suggests around 1250fps at 1000 yards if I recall.

ALCOAR
06-17-11, 23:31
.......

shootist~
06-17-11, 23:44
{Edited}: Just ran JBM at my elevation of 5,000'; with Mk 262 leaving at 2,800+ it stays subsonic a little over 1,000 Yds.

IIRC, 2,000' elevation is where it goes subsonic at ~ 900 Yds.

BaileyMoto
06-17-11, 23:58
When I ran it with JBM at my elevation of 5,000', it went subsonic at ~900 yds. (With Mk 262 leaving at 2,800+, IIRC.)

Hmm, interesting. I'm closer to 6000, but when I plug in 5000 feet at 80 degrees, I get 1195fps and for 6000ft and 1228fps (both 80 degrees). Creeps up as you raise temps from there.

BTW, thats starting with a 1250 muzzle velocity.

Lost River
06-18-11, 00:35
the only issues the 1-4 has over a RDS is eye alignment. shooting from non-traditional positions such as supine is slower to the point that it might require removing the stock from the shoulder...

I am quite well aware of this. Thanks.

Jake'sDad
06-18-11, 12:35
It's fun as hell taking a look at like I have though....Ive said it so many times on here before I want to puke saying it again now, but I'm never trying to reinvent the wheel or change proverbial company policy, but rather experience these things for myself. I don't want to take folk's word when I can otherwise go out in the field or range and do the testing myself....be it flawed to some or not. I now will stand beside you in your opinion and feel confident in it due to not forming it through reading on the silly net or even a book, but rather with my own facilities and gear.

I agree, much in the same way that buying my first chronograph 25 years ago or so was very illuminating. A lot of the formulas for figuring velocity loss I'd read in the gun press, were just flat wrong. I ended up with a lot of shorter barrel rifles after that, 18-20" .308's, 16" .223's, etc., that everyone would tell me were losing too much velocity.

Keep up the research Trident. A lot of us that don't have access to the ranges you have, (or also, in my case, the skill you have), enjoy and learn from your posts!

supersix4
06-18-11, 14:53
Not sure what category this falls into but here is mine:

http://i406.photobucket.com/albums/pp142/308M1A/DSC02826_resize.jpg

http://i406.photobucket.com/albums/pp142/308M1A/DSC02824_resize.jpg


I also believe that getting out and trying things for yourself is the only way to know what works and what doesn't.

ALCOAR
06-19-11, 01:42
......

BaileyMoto
06-19-11, 01:55
Keep em coming!

One suggestion/question...will your video editing software allow you to add the second (target) video as a small box in the corner? Or perhaps simply a split screen? It would be neat to see you AND the target video at the same time. I know it's easy in my editing software, but iMovie makes most things relatively easy.

Just a thought.

Cameron
06-19-11, 11:01
Karl Lewis's quick changing black rifle: put up or shut up!

Pretty impressive that you can change the barrels and no re-zero and make hits at 650yds.

Well that goes to show that the difference between a 16" and an 18" MV is really not enough to make a difference in dope even at 650yds.

You might have just shown (in addition to the excellent barrel change ability) that the 16" makes the most sense.

Cameron

ALCOAR
06-19-11, 13:49
...........

jwfuhrman
06-19-11, 14:44
excellent Trident. If you want to make the 2nd video like you say, do 10rds with the 18 then show the switch over over the barrel and do 10rds with the 16

shootist~
06-19-11, 15:01
After the first 20 rounds, logic would indicate (to me) that the second barrel be re-zeroed after the swap - at whatever distance is normal. Apples to apples that way (and more in line with the original intent of the test).

Take a pic of each target for OnTarget PC - repainting for the second go. Comparisons of the two OnTarg analysis should show the real differences. ETA: you might even consider stapling some IPSC targets or cardboard to the sides of the steel to pick up the misses (for OnTarg to get the full results).

Instead of a white target with a red center I sugguest you try all red, but put down a white base first. Red over a white base is the easiest to see, IMO. But with the NF at 10x even all white will work well.

Just my two sense. :)

TehLlama
06-19-11, 21:22
While I've been away from these forums for a few weeks, and expect to be soon, I do have a submission for my optimal setup for a Recce upper, with a couple variations.
Noveske 16" Medium Contour Intermediate Barrel
DD M4RIS2 (or KAC URX) Handguard
SureFire 556FA Suppressor

I'm going to try and procure something very similar to this for my use and comparison, though it will wear different parts (VTAC Extreme 13.0 rail, dimpled barrel, and using an OPS 14th or M4S), and will compare this to my Centurion DMR setup.

My data points are likely going to be limited to mile-high altitude, and probably will be subject to January weather, but for now, Trident's good stuff will have to tide me over.


On a related (but hopefully not derailing note), is there an ETA for the NF NXS Compact scopes with the faster cams (looking for the 2.5-10x MilDot/.1Mil pairing)?

ALCOAR
06-19-11, 22:22
..........

slomo
06-20-11, 05:26
I'm enjoying your videos very much and jealous of your energy since this looks like a one man show and humping all of that gear and transferring the videos takes a lot of time.
I'm not surprised that your 16" barrel is performing as well as the 18" since theoretically you're only losing 50 to 100fps velocity with the 16 and that would transfer to an extra 12" of elevation at 700yds. What is your scope elevation change between the two barrels?
I'll reiterate from a couple of pages back. A CED M2 chronograph would set you back $200 and give you some numbers for your barrel/ammunition combinations.
PS: For that matter I have an old Oehler 35 that I could lone you for your tests.

jwfuhrman
06-20-11, 09:22
waiting on my Leupold Mark4 1.5-5 to get here, when it does, I'll take some video shooting out to what all I've got to work with(400). I may have a possibility of getting out farther, but we'll see.

Cameron
06-20-11, 10:17
Karl Lewis's quick changing black rifle: put up or shut up!



Trident, when you changed from the 18" to 16" barrel did you dial any elevation into the scope?

Cameron

Scoby
06-20-11, 11:03
Trident, when you changed from the 18" to 16" barrel did you dial any elevation into the scope?

Cameron

I was wondering the same thing.

You're doing a great job here Trident. I've found it to be really interesting. Wish I had the photo equipment to do some of my own videos.

ALCOAR
06-20-11, 17:22
........

ALCOAR
06-20-11, 18:02
.......

ALCOAR
06-20-11, 18:19
......

Cameron
06-20-11, 19:16
Firstly, Scoby and Cameron....

....shot 1- low 3ft..left 3ft(absolute coldbore shot on the swap)

OK so it was an approximate 6MOA shift it POI with the 18" to the 16" but we are not really talking about an true Muzzle Velocity shift.

Excellent stuff mate.

Cameron

ALCOAR
06-29-11, 19:34
Velocity Data....comparing the two using multiple types of ammo to establish a baseline or avg. differences across the ammunition spectrum rather than focusing on one loading like the mk262 or similar heavy match type ammo that was a bit to much to just waste by only shooting through a chrony. Will update with mk 262 comparisions sooner or later but it really in my judgement isn't needed as I now feel I have a great understanding of the true velocity differences b/t a 16" and 18" barrel is when the blank is held constant obviously.

Chrony was a Oehler 35P Proof...thanks to slomo.

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC00854-1.jpg

Conditions....forgot since this is a re-edit:)

Data....
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC00862-1.jpg
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC00870-1.jpg
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC00876-1.jpg
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC00881-1.jpg
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC00884-1.jpg

slomo
06-30-11, 09:56
Thank you.

Cameron
06-30-11, 14:04
I wasn't concerned with focusing on specific ammo types for these two particular guns, but rather head to head velocity comparisons using the same quality ammo as a constant for each example.

OK so no real surprises there, about 90fps delta between 16" and 18" barrels, is right in line with my testing.

It is just another result that makes me think the 16" Recce makes more and more sense over the 18" SPR.

Cameron

ALCOAR
06-30-11, 15:51
........

shootist~
06-30-11, 17:41
I'll take a different view for the hell of it. Actually I have an SPR, but not a Reece; therefore the SPR must be superior... :lol:

For longer range - the prime purpose of the SPR & Recce - with the already low-end energy of .223/5.56; 100 fps is fairly significant. Foot lbs of energy is not a great indicator, but it's the best available from JMB so I compared my SPR load.

100 fps (I rounded up) at the muzzle, using a 77 gr SMK at 2,600 mv and comparing to one at 2,700 and running out to 500 Meters at my altitude of 5,000 ft:


2,700 mv = 482.4 ft lbs at 500M
2,600 mv = 438.5 ft lbs at 500M

Favorable difference using the 18" = 43.9 ft lbs, which sounds minor, but is a difference of 10%.

Trident - You now have to buy some goats.

jwfuhrman
06-30-11, 18:25
yep, I agree....I just cannot see how 90fps +/- really makes a difference in the real world, someone smarter than me may beg to differ and, and I invite them to weigh in and enlighten me...until then from a practical standpoint, the recce is prob. the better choice.

Something has to be said for the weight/profile of the SPR barrel, as it can endure higher rates of fire w/o suffering detrimental accuracy effects from barrel heat. The extra weight always helps a true precision gun imho as well but portability happens to play in our little equation here.



Idk man, I use my "Reece" type build for 3gun. I'm the Match Director for one of the Clubs, and help run the matches at another here in Indiana. Setup a 300 yard stage that had a lot of movement, and various positions from 350yards to 300yards, 42 rounds. I shot it in the 2nd fastest time of 49.59secs, and didn't really have any problems with accuracy. My barrel is a BCM SS410 16in Middy.

Cameron
06-30-11, 22:25
Favorable difference using the 18" = 43.9 ft lbs, which sounds minor, but is a difference of 10%.

I think you just helped prove that it is actually insignificant, and don't forget if you look at the energy again at 1,000yds the difference is in single digits.

This is making me think I should sell my SPR...

Cameron

Warg
06-30-11, 23:02
I think you just helped prove that it is actually insignificant, and don't forget if you look at the energy again at 1,000yds the difference is in single digits.

This is making me think I should sell my SPR...

Cameron

I concur and sold mine recently. The quote below has probably been overused, but I think it's worth repeating given Mr. Defoor's reputation and the applicability to this thread. Perhaps even more applicable for the civilians among us who use these for entertainment and sport:


The original whatever you want to call them- Recces, SPRs, MK 12s (we usually just say "sniper M4") had a 16" barrel, Leupold 2.5-10 and a PRI foregrip. They were first used operationally in '93 in Somalia by our guys that were attached to our Southern brethren.

It went to 18" quite frankly because the big Army got involved. Most of us that have a lot of time on one (myself included) think that 16" is better for a number of reasons;
1. 2" does make a difference especially with a can.
2. weight (it's not pounds at this stage it's ounces) and remember that balance has a factor here too.
3. I've shot both together on the same range at the same time. I don't really care what charts and scientists say, me and mine can hit just as good with 16" as 18".

Slight digression- I think most experienced guys will also agree that 24-26" is too long for the 700 as well. 20-22" is fine for what distances most will use it for.

The MK12 is ok as it comes, but, me and majority of the guys that were around me immediatley shitcanned the fixed stock. Some would go with a Geisselle trigger too, and some would put a tube rail back on. All of these little touches were done in house at the shooters home team.

As has been pointed out 5.56 does fine in moderate wind out pretty far. There are an assload of guys both Army and Navy that have slayed passed 600 repeatedly.

For pickin and choosin I tell guys the rules of 4 for caliber;
400 and closer- 5.56 all day
400-800 - 7.62
800-1200- 300 WM
1200-1600 - 338 Lapua

I said a few years ago that bolt action sniper guns would become obseolete at close and moderate distances. I got laughed at. Well, a good friend of mine who I shot with during 2 courses this year and his shooting partner just won the International Sniper Competition at Benning with Larue OBRs.

There's no reason to not have a mag fed snipe gun anymore for 90% of the shooters out there. The manufacturers have simply done too good a job to not use them. On that note, there is already a 7.62 mag fed that has a 12" barrel and will hold 1 MOA to 300 no problem.;)

Good thread guys!

Respect,
KD

Cameron
06-30-11, 23:26
Yeah, I was looking at your post on page two of this thread with the velocity/energy delta chart between the two. I posted Kyle's quote back on the same page.

What is interesting:


I said a few years ago that bolt action sniper guns would become obseolete at close and moderate distances. I got laughed at. Well, a good friend of mine who I shot with during 2 courses this year and his shooting partner just won the International Sniper Competition at Benning with Larue OBRs.

There's no reason to not have a mag fed snipe gun anymore for 90% of the shooters out there. The manufacturers have simply done too good a job to not use them. On that note, there is already a 7.62 mag fed that has a 12" barrel and will hold 1 MOA to 300 no problem.;)

When Trident said as much in the LMT MRP 308! (https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=53319) thread he was derided by the usual suspects.

The .308 precision bolt gun belongs in the Smithsonian with all the other Dinosaurs.


In what context? What qualifies you to make this statement? What is your experience with precision bolt guns, even just target range experience, that leads you to this conclusion?
I'm kinda surprised Rob didn't ask the same of Kyle Defoor.


OK, anyway it is settled, in the Battle for light precision supremacy: The Recce Rifle Vs. The SPR the 16" trumps the 18" and the semi trumps the bolt.

I've got mine, Daniel Defense/Lothar Walther 16" Recce, sub MOA and making first round hits on man sized targets out to 800yds.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5310/5888256691_8fda7e4ca3_b.jpg

Cameron

Warg
06-30-11, 23:56
Sorry Cameron, I missed your quote.

I too think Trident's post on BA 308s is bit strong. I suspect he was doing a bit of grandstanding or perhaps stirring the pot a little ;), but I don't want to put words in his mouth. I think Defoor was strictly referring to bolt guns becoming obsolete at close to moderate distances. IMO, at longer distances the bolt gun still has lots of life left. They're still much lighter than the semi-automatics in the same caliber, a helluva lot more simplistic, much less money to purchase and cheaper to maintain. Personally, I wouldn't be too keen on humping a fully equipped AR-10 over mountainous terrain for very long distances. For medium to long range hunting I go to my lightweight 5.56 and 6.8 for small and medium game, respectively. For larger stuff, however, it's my bolt action Remy 700 by a longshot. In fact, I'm noodling a lightweight bolt action build because, at 8 lbs with optic, I think it's too heavy. And yes, I've been known to lift a weight or two ;).

Cameron
07-01-11, 00:08
Sorry Cameron, I missed your quote.

I too think Trident's post on BA 308s is bit strong. I suspect he was doing a bit of grandstanding or perhaps stirring the pot a little ;), but I don't want to put words in his mouth. I think Defoor was strictly referring to bolt guns becoming obsolete at close to moderate distances. IMO, at longer distances the bolt gun still has lots of life left. They're still much lighter than the semi-automatics in the same caliber, a helluva lot more simplistic, much less money to purchase and cheaper to maintain. And personally, I wouldn't want to hump a fully equipped AR-10 over mountainous terrain for very long distances.

While Kyle does say "close and moderate distances" he then points out the winners of the International Sniper Competition used semis.

I think the semi auto has eclipsed the bolt action as the precision rifle of choice, and hyperbole aside, Trident and Kyle were basically saying the same thing, Kyle said he was laughed at too...

Anyway, the 16" Recce wins the battle for supremacy, to celebrate I may take mine into the Rocky Mountains sometime this weekend and see if I can't have some long range fun.

Cameron

Warg
07-01-11, 00:14
While Kyle does say "close and moderate distances" he then points out the winners of the International Sniper Competition used semis.

I think the semi auto has eclipsed the bolt action as the precision rifle of choice, and hyperbole aside, Trident and Kyle were basically saying the same thing, Kyle said he was laughed at too...

Anyway, the 16" Recce wins the battle for supremacy, to celebrate I may take mine into the Rocky Mountains sometime this weekend and see if I can't have some long range fun.

Cameron


I don't exacly see the SA as the rifle of choice- yet. I think it really depends on ones application and intended use. International sniper competitions aren't exactly the same as traversing ridgelines in Afghanistan.

To your point about the 16" Reece. I fully agree. My SPR is about to be replaced with a 5.9 lb (7.4 lbs.with optics) "precision hunting" AR so I too can lug it to hell and back over the mountains here.

BaileyMoto
07-01-11, 01:32
When using 100fps difference:

http://www.mk12.net/2650vs2750.jpg

The SPR is meant to be a compromise between shorter lengths and the 20". Lot's of 'little things' can add up to a miss/larger groups whilst pushing the limits of the .223/5.56...weight, harmonics, chamber, barrel profile, velocity, etc...so they say.

It's easy to take small slivers of data (say 20" vs 18", 18" vs 16", 16" vs. 14.5", and so on) and conclude that the differences are small enough that it doesn't matter. However, those differences start to become quite large when you compare against the original benchmark...say the 20", for argument sake. I suppose it's easy to lose sight of that. I don't see any of said barrel lengths as superior to one another. Rather, I look at each setup and decide what I would consider the best all around compromise for the desired role.

FromMyColdDeadHand
07-01-11, 12:32
I was just looking for the thread, but couldn't find it. The real workd difference isn't energy or really velocity, but fragmentation difference. A 100ft velocity delta holds up pretty well as you go farther out, and by the look of the table below that would mean that you'd get 100 yards more of fragmention distance out of a 77gr bullet with an 18 vs a 16in barrel, given the same bullet design.

Even that might not be that important, because I was looking for the velocuty threashold, and I thought it was like 2400fps, so when you are talking longer shots, neither barrel is going to have bullets frag.

I don't hunt with an AR and I shoot a lot more steel than people, so the difference to me in academic. If bailey moto could add some wind to the table that might be interesting- how big of a wind change can happen and you still stay on a target. Also at 750yrds plus the 16 inch barrel bullet will have more of a drop than the 18 inch barrel, making it more prone to range estimation error issues.

BaileyMoto
07-01-11, 12:48
2650fps / 15mph wind / 90* angle at 600 yards:
50.22 inches of windage (2.32 mils)

2750fps / 15mph wind / 90* angle at 600 yards:
47.47 inches of windage (2.20 mils)

And about 8 inches difference between the two at 1000 yards.


Not a terribly significant amount, imo.


EDIT - Also, if I recall off the top of my head, the 77gr SMK/MK262 needs about 2200fps to fragment. From my understanding, this round has been known to even provide some fragmentation all the way down to 10" barrels.

In case anyone is interested, here is a bit of information on the mk262 round:

http://www.mk12.net/mk262.ppt

ALCOAR
07-01-11, 15:01
........

FromMyColdDeadHand
07-01-11, 15:14
Thanks for the data Bailey, I think the biggest difference was short barrels with M855 vs Mk262. At 2200fps, it looks like you'd get 50 more yards out of a 18 inch barrel- 250 vs 300yrds- I don't know if that is significant to anyone.

Maybe the other way to look at it is, 556 in a 16inch barrel is like 223 in an 18. Now that doesn't factor in accuracy of the two levels of loads, my 18inch Wylde chamber rifle loves 77gr 223 loads.

Is this the thread where people were talking about semi vs bolt? Another factor, maybe not for you guys shooting guns on weekday afternoons ;) , is that you can get a Rem700 bolt gun for the price of a good AR barrel. And then add all the goodies to get an AR to where people think it should shoot like a bolt and you are about $1500 or more, Novekse's run $2000+. Just a thought.

BaileyMoto
07-01-11, 15:21
Thanks for the data Bailey, I think the biggest difference was short barrels with M855 vs Mk262. At 2200fps, it looks like you'd get 50 more yards out of a 18 inch barrel- 250 vs 300yrds- I don't know if that is significant to anyone.

Maybe the other way to look at it is, 556 in a 16inch barrel is like 223 in an 18. Now that doesn't factor in accuracy of the two levels of loads, my 18inch Wylde chamber rifle loves 77gr 223 loads.

Is this the thread where people were talking about semi vs bolt? Another factor, maybe not for you guys shooting guns on weekday afternoons ;) , is that you can get a Rem700 bolt gun for the price of a good AR barrel. And then add all the goodies to get an AR to where people think it should shoot like a bolt and you are about $1500 or more, Novekse's run $2000+. Just a thought.


It's the same addiction with bolt guns as well. :P Go check out GA Precision, underground skunkworks, or some of the other bolt gun builders. You'll see that you can quickly rack up $3000-$4000 into a 3/8-1/2MOA (guaranteed) rifle w/o optics. I'll put a properly built precision AR up against my plain jane walmart rem700 any day :)

http://www.gaprecision.net/ga-precision-2011-custom-rifles/ga-precision-the-crusader.html

http://www.undergroundsw.com/page13.php

ALCOAR
07-01-11, 19:49
...........

FromMyColdDeadHand
07-01-11, 21:30
It's the same addiction with bolt guns as well. :P Go check out GA Precision, underground skunkworks, or some of the other bolt gun builders. You'll see that you can quickly rack up $3000-$4000 into a 3/8-1/2MOA (guaranteed) rifle w/o optics. I'll put a properly built precision AR up against my plain jane walmart rem700 any day :)

http://www.gaprecision.net/ga-precision-2011-custom-rifles/ga-precision-the-crusader.html

http://www.undergroundsw.com/page13.php

Oh, a GAP rifle would fill a gap in my gun safe. Put some nice S&B glass on one of those and would be worth more than the car I drive to range in ;)

FishingFool
07-02-11, 11:12
When using 100fps difference:

http://www.mk12.net/2650vs2750.jpg

The SPR is meant to be a compromise between shorter lengths and the 20". Lot's of 'little things' can add up to a miss/larger groups whilst pushing the limits of the .223/5.56...weight, harmonics, chamber, barrel profile, velocity, etc...so they say.

It's easy to take small slivers of data (say 20" vs 18", 18" vs 16", 16" vs. 14.5", and so on) and conclude that the differences are small enough that it doesn't matter. However, those differences start to become quite large when you compare against the original benchmark...say the 20", for argument sake. I suppose it's easy to lose sight of that. I don't see any of said barrel lengths as superior to one another. Rather, I look at each setup and decide what I would consider the best all around compromise for the desired role.

what program are you using to come up with that spreadsheet?

BaileyMoto
07-02-11, 11:24
Ballistics FTE for the iPhone.

TWR
07-03-11, 23:56
I think comparing a Recce and a SPR based on the rifle specs is an error. I have always viewed these two rifles as weapons purposely built to meet two different ideas.

The Recce rifle is supposed to be a weapon that you can clear a building with and then provide cover and security from the rooftop. Thus it has a shorter barrel and a lower powered variable optic. I believe the newer Afghan concept rifle might actually be a better Recce than the Recce.

The SPR is supposed to be a dedicated longish range sniper type rifle. It has a higher powered optic and a longer barrel for more muzzle velocity, more accuracy and more range than the standard carbine.

These two rifles will have A LOT of overlap in their deployment with the Recce being better for close range and the SPR being better for the outer edge of the 5.56s range.

I would have to agree with this post.

The optics set them apart. I also wonder why long range target shooters will do almost anything to get that "insignificant" 100 fps. I have Ackley Improved a gun to get that 100 fps.

I use a couple of 16" light weight Colts, one with an H1, the other a Leupold 1.5-5 as well as a Noveske 18" SPR with a 3.5-10, asking one to do the others job is a compromise.

If I'm gonna compromise, I'll take my Krieger 17" RECCE with it's 3.5-10. Throw in an Aimpoint in a QD mount and have the best of both worlds.

Velocity with my 77 gr SMK reloads and TAC run;
16" = 2578 fps
17" = 2726 fps
18" = 2737 fps*

*(the chamber is the difference, the 17" has a tighter chamber and won't handle as much powder, the 18" Noveske can handle a half a grain more powder and runs 2786 fps. Using the same chamber as Trident did would offset this as it would in the 16") Good info and I like the way you ran the comparison.

I would think it still boils down to what do you need to do?

TWR
07-18-11, 10:37
After thinking about this further, I decided to compare apples to apples and see for myself. (good excuse right?)

I ordered a Noveske 16" light weight barrel and went to the range. I chronographed the same load in both my 18" Noveske SPR and this LW for a difference of 71fps.

The load is LC brass, CCI #41 primer, 24.3 grs of TAC and a 77 gr SMK. the 16" averaged 2650 fps and the 18" averaged 2721 fps.

Accuracy was equal at 100 yards but I used a 1.5-5 scope on the 16" so didn't take it any further.

I'm liking the 16" better and thought you'd like the info. My 16" Colts are just slow and shouldn't have been compared.

caporider
07-18-11, 15:55
I shot 20 rounds of the Superformance Match 75gr 5.56 out of my SPR-type rifle. It has an 18" Superior Barrels Terebratus 416 nitrided barrel with a rifle-length gas port.

http://personal.visualitymedia.com/personal/ar15/556spr_900.jpg

On an 83 degree day at 960ft ASL, my CED M2 chronograph recorded an average MV of 2903fps, which corrects to 2913fps at the muzzle. That is absolutely smoking out of an 18" barrel for a 75gr T2 projectile. I did not test for accuracy, but the recorded ES of 88 is a bit concerning. I know my chronograph was reading correctly, as it gave me the expected MV for a different factory load.

I did not see any popped primers or other pressure signs on my brass. I use an H2 buffer as well as a Superior Shooting Systems flat wire action spring to delay unlocking as much as possible and smooth out the recoil impulse. For simple functioning, the combination of the SPR-type barrel and my buffer/action spring seem to work very well with the 75gr Superformance load.

Since Hornady specifically recommends using Superformance ammo only in semiautos with rifle-length gas systems, an accurate 75gr 5.56 load at 2900fps in an SPR vs an accurate 77gr load at 2650 in a recce would seem to give the SPR quite an edge... The big question at the moment is if the Superformance 75gr load CAN be accurate; there are various reports putting it at 2-3MOA at 100 yards, and others at 1MOA at the same distance.

Cameron
07-18-11, 19:32
You are getting MV faster than Hornady did with a 20" test barrel??

Cameron

caporider
07-18-11, 19:53
You are getting MV faster than Hornady did with a 20" test barrel??

Cameron

Hornady lists MV at 2910 out of a 20" barrel. If that's at ISO standard, I'd guess I'm within the margin of error of an "average" 18" barrel at the higher temps in which I was shooting. That ES of 88 probably also offers a clue...

Even if we call it 2850 for an 18" barrel, that's still a 200fps bump from a 16" barrel shooting Mk262.

TWR
07-18-11, 21:50
The question would be what would the Superformance ammo do in a 16" barrel like your 18"?

My 17" Krieger has run as high as 2766fps due to it's tighter match chamber, the key is to compare like barrels under the same conditions.

As you can see the 18" was slower Saturday than the last time I chronographed it due to humidity I'm thinking. Chrono was 15' from muzzle with an extreme spread of 78 fps on the 16" and 66 fps on the 18" string. This is a 100 yard 5 shot group with the 16" and 1.5-5 scope with a heavy duplex.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v374/TOM64/noveskelw007.jpg
And here's one from the 18" Noveske SPR.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v374/TOM64/8.jpg

So now you have to buy 16" barrel just like your 18" and continue the testing.:D

caporider
07-18-11, 21:56
The question would be what would the Superformance ammo do in a 16" barrel like your 18"?

So now you have to buy 16" barrel just like your 18" and continue the testing.:D

Unfortunately, Superformance 75gr loads pop primers when used with carbine and mid-length gas systems. That's sort of the point I was trying to make... Here's a load that really pushes up MV in SPRs that won't work well in recce-type rifles, giving the SPR a 200fps bump over a recce. Does this change the barrel-length equation? It might, provided the Superformance load provides good accuracy.

TWR
07-18-11, 23:36
Hmmm, didn't know as I don't pay much attention to factory ammo but I might try to locate some and try in my Noveske SPR with the intermediate gas system. I do have an extra power spring and H2 buffers laying around. I'll look into it.

Interesting.

edit;
Okay, I read about it here http://www.hornady.com/ammunition/superformance-in-gas-operated-firearms
and it doesn't rule out a 16" if an adjustable gas block is used but I'm gonna pass on that. It would give a giant boost in retaing supersonic speed.

ra2bach
07-19-11, 10:57
sorry to disturb the signal to noise ratio but for an 18" barrel, I only see a few (couple?) companies use an intermediate gas system. most use a rifle length.

is the intermediate better, theoretically, or is it just a bunch of horse feathers?..

shootist~
07-19-11, 11:31
sorry to disturb the signal to noise ratio but for an 18" barrel, I only see a few (couple?) companies use an intermediate gas system. most use a rifle length.

is the intermediate better, theoretically, or is it just a bunch of horse feathers?..

I cannot imagine anything more reliable than the intermediate gas on my Noveske SPR barrel with an H buffer and standard Colt carbine spring. Fairly light powered 55gr reloads to various 55 to 77 gr 5.56 pressure factory ammo all work with no indications of under or over ejection issues.

The Bolt is a BCM; ejection runs from ~3:30 with the hotter stuff to 4:00 or so with .223 pressure ammo.

ETA: The other 18" barrels I see a my club are mid-length gas.

Cameron
07-19-11, 13:55
My BCM SPR has the rifle length gas system with an 18" barrel and is extremely reliable and soft shooting. I think from mid length to rifle length they all work no problems.

Cameron

ra2bach
07-20-11, 11:44
I cannot imagine anything more reliable than the intermediate gas on my Noveske SPR barrel with an H buffer and standard Colt carbine spring. Fairly light powered 55gr reloads to various 55 to 77 gr 5.56 pressure factory ammo all work with no indications of under or over ejection issues.

The Bolt is a BCM; ejection runs from ~3:30 with the hotter stuff to 4:00 or so with .223 pressure ammo.

ETA: The other 18" barrels I see a my club are mid-length gas.

forgot about midlength...

now assuming (big risk here) that the midlength is the "sweetspot" for 16" barrels, and the rifle is for 20", next step in the logic chain says intermediate is correct for 18".

anybody have that chart for dwell time and expansion ratios? not that I give more than half a sh*t about this but now my interest is piqued... :smile:

Warg
07-20-11, 14:10
Here (http://www.ar15barrels.com/prod/operation.shtml) you go. Bottom of the page.

Interpolating from Randall's chart, dwell time ("Net Time" in his table) for an 18" BBL with intermediate gas is approximately 0.2 ms.


forgot about midlength...

now assuming (big risk here) that the midlength is the "sweetspot" for 16" barrels, and the rifle is for 20", next step in the logic chain says intermediate is correct for 18".

anybody have that chart for dwell time and expansion ratios? not that I give more than half a sh*t about this but now my interest is piqued... :smile:

ra2bach
07-21-11, 13:16
Here (http://www.ar15barrels.com/prod/operation.shtml) you go. Bottom of the page.

Interpolating from Randall's chart, dwell time ("Net Time" in his table) for an 18" BBL with intermediate gas is approximately 0.2 ms.

so bottom line, this is a good thing?

thanks for that link. I'll pore over it when I have more time....

jackinfl
07-23-11, 22:19
What happened to TRIDENT82's posts?

ALCOAR
07-23-11, 22:40
My apologies on that brother....I will explain some.

For one reason or another immediately after I started this thread I started to have some serious problems with a cpl. members mainly one. I started several other threads to include one that was heavily edited much like this one was by the mods due to the comments left in it by some. This has been going on over the last several months. Ultimately after finally getting a warning for getting wordy to the person who has all but ruined M4C for myself, I decided to just remove all my content from this thread forward to that point outta pure frustration.

Personally this wasn't a big deal in the least to do as I have said from word 1 when I op'd this thread that I started this thread for one reason (a true official discussion on all that is the Recce and SPR rifles.)and knew that I was going to take shit over it since I had to share extensively my rifles, my results, and my opinions on a highly in depth topic and school of discussion.

Ultimately, all those who have contributed their truly stellar information have formed a rich meat and flesh now that is this thread, thereby the removal of my skeletal op reply and subsequent RR's, info, and pics could all be removed, and M4C would still have a great Recce/SPR thread for all to benefit from.

Kill By Number
07-24-11, 20:34
This really sucks, I just read 11 pages of stuff to find out that Tridents post are all gone for "forum political correctness". I understand why you pulled them Trident. This is a great forum and heeding the Mods is a good idea, but I saw lots of "best thread ever" and never got to see any of your results. Are the videos still up somewhere?

Warg
07-25-11, 13:42
so bottom line, this is a good thing?

thanks for that link. I'll pore over it when I have more time....

Yes, 0.2 ms is considered optimal.

ALCOAR
07-27-11, 15:11
Hi guys, Ive been meaning to post this but held off til I saw a final product....this is posted over on the hide by KJO..aka High Caliber Sales.

Basically High Caliber Sales is now gonna build a Recce that is based off their existing MK 12 uppers. If I wasn't totally monolithic/rock, I would buy this Recce upper in a heartbeat, and it's the real deal holyfield imho.

Just look at the beautiful piece of awesomeness.....
(KJO's pic)
http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww312/kjomd/IMG_0438.jpg

jamaicanj
08-01-11, 23:11
This really sucks, I just read 11 pages of stuff to find out that Tridents post are all gone for "forum political correctness". I understand why you pulled them Trident. This is a great forum and heeding the Mods is a good idea, but I saw lots of "best thread ever" and never got to see any of your results. Are the videos still up somewhere?

I'm in the same boat as you. I saw all the comments praising trident and was hoping to get some of the knowledge.

GD4
08-09-11, 18:49
I am currently building a SPR and have spent the last few days reading all twelve pages of pure win. Alot of this is super technical from my point of view but I feel a little more educated. This is my planed SPR as of today.

* indicates parts already on hand

PSA lower*
PSA MIAD LPK*
Geissele SSA E trigger*
B.A.D. A.S.S. *
Vltor A5 complete stock


Vltor MUR
BCM F/A BCG*
Troy TRX 13 inch rail
WOA 18 inch SS 1:7 mid length bbl
Troy flip up irons
Harris Bipod on Larue mount*

Leupold MARK AR 4x12 */ Larue SPR mount
Aimpoint H1 on a side mount from Larue

Before anyone inputs on the 18 vs 16 I already have a 16 inch middy that I can hit steel at 550 meters on a kd range. I wont go shorter then 18 and Im not to keen on going 20.

Any other input from those here I would be greatly appreciative.

Thanks
GD4

Warg
08-11-11, 15:12
This thread is no longer a "pure win" since Trident removed his data. In fact, it's largely a waste of 1's a 0's (and a lot of time for the folks who actively contributed) in the current state.

At any rate, the items you've selected for your SPR look fine, though I'd ditch the Mark AR in favor of a better optic.


I am currently building a SPR and have spent the last few days reading all twelve pages of pure win. Alot of this is super technical from my point of view but I feel a little more educated. This is my planed SPR as of today.

* indicates parts already on hand

PSA lower*
PSA MIAD LPK*
Geissele SSA E trigger*
B.A.D. A.S.S. *
Vltor A5 complete stock


Vltor MUR
BCM F/A BCG*
Troy TRX 13 inch rail
WOA 18 inch SS 1:7 mid length bbl
Troy flip up irons
Harris Bipod on Larue mount*

Leupold MARK AR 4x12 */ Larue SPR mount
Aimpoint H1 on a side mount from Larue

Before anyone inputs on the 18 vs 16 I already have a 16 inch middy that I can hit steel at 550 meters on a kd range. I wont go shorter then 18 and Im not to keen on going 20.

Any other input from those here I would be greatly appreciative.

Thanks
GD4

ALCOAR
08-11-11, 16:11
I am currently building a SPR and have spent the last few days reading all twelve pages of pure win. Alot of this is super technical from my point of view but I feel a little more educated. This is my planed SPR as of today.

* indicates parts already on hand

PSA lower*
PSA MIAD LPK*
Geissele SSA E trigger*
B.A.D. A.S.S. *
Vltor A5 complete stock


Vltor MUR
BCM F/A BCG*
Troy TRX 13 inch rail
WOA 18 inch SS 1:7 mid length bbl
Troy flip up irons
Harris Bipod on Larue mount*

Leupold MARK AR 4x12 */ Larue SPR mount
Aimpoint H1 on a side mount from Larue

Before anyone inputs on the 18 vs 16 I already have a 16 inch middy that I can hit steel at 550 meters on a kd range. I wont go shorter then 18 and Im not to keen on going 20.

Any other input from those here I would be greatly appreciative.

Thanks
GD4

Nothing not to like about that build....alternatively, currently If I had to pick a 16" or an 18"...I would pick the SPR as I currently shoot it far more and enjoy the extra weight and comfort it provides while shooting prone.

Great trigger, however there is a slightly better pick in my book which is the SD-E trigger. I cannot see anyone not loving the SD-E new design, moreover the reviews are basically 5stars across from all the feedback I have read.

Lastly, my apologies again for letting a very few get the better of me and hopefully I can contribute some in the future but I hate to see the awesome info all the others provided go to waste as I have learned and gain a better understanding of these guns from the that info provided that is still contained w/in this thread :)

J Krammes
08-12-11, 10:00
This thread is no longer a "pure win" since Trident removed his data. In fact, it's largely a waste of 1's a 0's (and a lot of time for the folks who actively contributed) in the current state.



That is an understatement... I have came back to this thread a few times for great info, and now I get to read a bunch of dots. Throw a few dashes in there and we can do posts in Morris Code. Maybe some won't get so but hurt then. I have got some of the best info on this forum, but I have also read some of the most juvenile BS on here too. I can't imagine what was wrong with this thread.

Jk

TehLlama
08-13-11, 04:35
I'm glad gmail kept all the thread update notifications, so I can reread the thread for my uses - again, I respect Trident's decision even if I disagree with the outcome.


More to the point, I was really looking forward to trying to really elucidate if a Recce wearing slightly heavier optics (or a slightly larger suppressor) could actually out-shoot an SPR in any ranged circumstances, or if the difference would just come down to handling vs. smoothness, the lighter more nimble 16" not being as comfortable to shoot from prone as the 18"

I really just with there was a way to empirically compare data: there are too many good options out there - SPR's from High Caliber, Centurion, Noveske, BCM, LT, WOA, and others, with an even wider array of 16" offerings, like the HC and CA Recce models, the Noveske Intermediate Recon and Recce, the BCM Stainless 16".

I've decided to try and see if running an Intermediate gassed Recce with an A5 RE/Buffer kit will give me comparable results to my SPR. It's going to take me a while to have that upper completed, but this thread was my inspiration for chucking another few grand down the light precision rabbit hole... I wish it could continue.

Scoby
08-13-11, 21:00
Hi guys, Ive been meaning to post this but held off til I saw a final product....this is posted over on the hide by KJO..aka High Caliber Sales.

Basically High Caliber Sales is now gonna build a Recce that is based off their existing MK 12 uppers. If I wasn't totally monolithic/rock, I would buy this Recce upper in a heartbeat, and it's the real deal holyfield imho.

Just look at the beautiful piece of awesomeness.....
(KJO's pic)
http://i731.photobucket.com/albums/ww312/kjomd/IMG_0438.jpg

Yes, that is a beautiful piece. I shot a KAC SR15 and a SR25 this weekend for the first time. Awesome. I really like the ambidextrous features of the lower. I have no doubt I'll end up with one of these.

I can't help but think I contributed to your descision to remove your post from YOUR thread. For that I am sorry. I can't tolerate an AH on the internet or FTF. Just the way I am.

Really wish you would repost your info. It is good stuff.

ALCOAR
08-13-11, 22:12
Thanks for continuing to weigh in guys... Overall thoughts, questions, build spec's, build pic's, etc. are all welcome and appreciated. Just remember this is a strict definition Recce and SPR thread and although I deleted my personal parameters or guidelines, M4C is certainly smart enough to know what is applicable and what isn't.

Someone smarter than me in terms of ballistic math and the like can hopefully weigh in a bit but after today's brief session this evening I think I have come to another solid observation and potentially advantage/disadvantage in the arena.

Bear in mind for me to have observed the following conclusion/information I have had to shoot these two guns on the exact same occasion...with the exact same ammunition, exact target/distance, and overall keeping the exact shooting conditions while formulating this "conclusion" of mine. So although I shoot these guns at least once weekly, it's only about 2-3 times a month that I get them out at distance together to compare and analyze.

So with that said, I honestly believe if you plan to shoot in windy conditions @ extreme ranges(700yds and up) than the extra 90-120fps generated by the SPR 18" has a clear and perhaps distant advantage over the Recce 16". I had 29/30 hits w/ the SPR @ 725yds using SF 53gr. Vmax.....I had 24/30 hits w/ the Recce @ 725yds using SF 53gr. Vmax.

At these extreme long ranges for a 5.56, that extra 100fps I believe makes a noticeable difference in terms of hits on a 12"x20" CMP steel target. This is also applicable for if the shooter is shooting in perhaps not so much extremely windy conditions, but conditions in which the bullet tracks across multiple wind directions/strengths of wind gusts. Bottom line is that I believe at extreme LR in heavy wind(10-20mph), the SPR wins this particular battle in the overall war for LW-P supremacy.


http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC01326-1.jpg


eta..Scoby...your a good pal of mine and you had nothing to do w. my childish editing, you have always been extremely supportive and a voice in which I have come to respect very much..esp. since you own such a beautiful and well executed SPR. In total honesty it was really just one member, I love the rest of M4C:)

J Krammes
08-14-11, 05:25
Why such light bullets? I am guessing your barrels have 1:7 twist. Wind should have less effect on heaver bullets. Have you tryed anything in the 62gr to 75gr catagory? I am almost set up to start reloading and my first try will be some Hornady 75gr A-max. in my 18" SPR. I don't have a 700 yrd range though. Max for me is 500 yrds.

Jeremy

ALCOAR
08-14-11, 06:12
Why such light bullets? I am guessing your barrels have 1:7 twist. Wind should have less effect on heaver bullets. Have you tryed anything in the 62gr to 75gr catagory? I am almost set up to start reloading and my first try will be some Hornady 75gr A-max. in my 18" SPR. I don't have a 700 yrd range though. Max for me is 500 yrds.

Jeremy

Besides my beloved 55gr. vmax and these new simply amazingly flat shooting 53gr. SF vmax's, I only launch in terms of LR shooting the 68gr. HPBT...occasional 69gr. SMK (however I believe it to be a either or thing almost as in if your barrel loves the hornady 68gr. hpbt pill, than it prob. won't love the 69gr. SMK pill), and lot's of the new BH's commercially avail. MK 262 mod1/aka..77gr. SMK.

I purposefully skipped over the 75gr.'s only because I find them so hit or miss depending on I guess the other ingredients in a particular reload like the powder and by extension the speed in which the 75gr. hpbt is being pushed. So with that said, my end all, main stay LR (non practice rd. these days) pill is the 5.56 TAP T2 using the 75gr. T2 bullet. I don't care what Molon says:D...the hornady T1 bullet which goes in the "match" load, and then the TAP .223 loading does not come even close to shooting as accurately as the T2's in my guns. Don't even get me started on how bad the 75gr. SF loading of it is(i actually think hornady just swapped the t1 for the t2 bullet in the SF loading though) in my exp.

Lastly, I just shot my first 40 rds. of the PRZI 75r.hpbt..20 rds. through the recce and spr, along with shooting a box the 69gr. PRZI hpbt variety through the recce and spr, and I was highly disappointed in the 69gr. stuff, and am for sure ordering 100 or 200rds more of the 75gr. stuff...Ive heard that you just have to get the most current batches or yr 2010 and up.

So there it is....my complete and total non reloader's diet for the Recce or SPR rifles:)

To the portion in bold....great minds think alike and I cannot tell you how many times I wish I could either reload and then hand feed some really heavy .223/5.56 loadings using the amax projectiles, or buy them commercially from somewhere. Basically over the last month or two I have started to try and explore the potential of hand feeding ultra heavy/long projectiles for "choice" occasions when the reality of a 1000yd shot with an overall high probability hit rate is required or desired. Just another reason why I wish I reloaded.

I'd LOVE to hear more about your exploration of reloads in regards to these heavy .223 bullets. Cook us up some nasty stuff and I will pay you good coin for a box or two to test out. Or perhaps someone can weigh in and point me in the direction of a place that sells a specialty load like above that is available in something commercially loaded.

eta...the barrels are indeed 1/7ths.
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC00616-1.jpg
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC00600-1.jpg

Also, I'm gonna work my way back and repopulate as best as I can the information I childishly removed, just updated the velocity data portion from pg 5.

ALCOAR
08-14-11, 07:08
Here is a recent head to head accuracy eval. using the barnes 55gr. tsx load that I think is just awesome in terms of it's just all around extremely high performance w. regards to barriers, terminal ballistics, and accuracy. Again, just cause you own a SPR or Recce doesn't mean you got to shoot the "coveted and special MK262 or even TAP T2...these guns should by design launch a wide variety of projectiles(unless you own an actual MK 12 clone w. the Douglas that has the mk262 special chamber in which it really only eats MK 262) Keep in mind that imho and according to all the info I have collected, the Recce or Seal Recon Rifle had as a requirement the ability to shoot a wide variety of ammo or all that was used in the early 90's and up in the U.S. inventory. Kinda like how the SDM-R was a step below the SPR/Mk12's accuracy/precision with it's special chamber for mk262, but remained above the traditional M16A4's accuracy/precision while still using the common 4x acog and ball ammo. The SDM R just used a match barrel and a KAC 2stage trigger to tap out the extra accuracy...the MK 12's almost exclusively shoot one rd. which currently is the MK262 mod1 and were built to do more "sniper" applications where the SDM R never was. This is a deep part of this topic. Anyway....results, the TSX is at the most an avg. rd. in terms of inherit accuracy and I believe they are just accurate enough to be used in these guns at long ranges so that the user can utilize the TSX pure expansion magic that doubles it's diameter at least vs. a MK262 that fragments imho very inconsistently...sometimes I have MK262 totally fragment out at 600-700yds as observed in one of my video's I posted when shooting over water(fragments disturbing water surface), however other times it will fragment only in like 2-3 pieces. I'm just not a huge fan of the 77gr. SMK projectile.

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/TgtGfxkkk-1.jpg
associated velocity comparison....
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/SANY0072-1.jpg
LR...YMMV
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC00905-1.jpg

600yds...both guns made 10/10 hits when comparing side by side for that test.
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/SANY0055-1.jpg

GD4
08-14-11, 07:57
Thanks for the feedback.

Trident82 I spent most of my CQ shift watching your you tube channel. Thanks for posting up more infor also.

Update on my build, Purchased a T1 and some troy irons with the sale they are having. Should have the build complete by november.

TWR
08-14-11, 08:21
Why such light bullets? I am guessing your barrels have 1:7 twist. Wind should have less effect on heaver bullets. Have you tryed anything in the 62gr to 75gr catagory? I am almost set up to start reloading and my first try will be some Hornady 75gr A-max. in my 18" SPR. I don't have a 700 yrd range though. Max for me is 500 yrds.

Jeremy

Range can be measured, wind is a bit harder to deal with so high BC bullets will trump velocity, (to a certain point of course). The 75A-Max is a wonderful bullet for a bolt gun but looks goofy at mag length since the case mouth doesn't come close to touching the bullet... Kinda scary to me but if neck tension is adequate, it has worked. If you're gonna single load the 80gr JLK could be even better.

I load the 77gr SMK's since I believe it has the highest BC that can be loaded to mag length. Shooting 50gr Nosler Ballistic Tips side by side with the 77's in wind showed me about BC. The 62gr TSX's are worth exploring as well.

ALCOAR
08-14-11, 09:37
This info was sourced from the wonderful database of ammo info and pics that wolfganggross has posted on various places on the net.

5.56mm Powell River Labs 87 grain blended metal (powdered tungsten and tin) core in a hollow point copper jacket

This is a true composite/blended metal bullet that was a candidate for Mk262 mod 0. It eventually lost out to the 77gr Sierra MatchKing.
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ammo_Cross_Sections/5.56_87gr_PRL_01.jpg
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ammo_Cross_Sections/5.56_87gr_PRL_02.jpg
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ammo_Cross_Sections/5.56_87gr_PRL_03.jpg

Now here is the MK262...
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ammo_Cross_Sections/Mk262%20Mod1%201.jpg
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ammo_Cross_Sections/Mk262%20Mod1%202.jpg
http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Ammo_Cross_Sections/Mk262%20Mod1%203.jpg

I wish I had a box of that stuff above(powell river labs ammo) and then a cpl. stripper clips of the optimized 70gr. "brown tip" 5.56 that took a damn chuck of Osama's head off, damn what a lucky sob whoever pulled that trigger and watched that caveman's head turn to pink mist:cool:

GD4...look forward to seeing your final product pal, and I really hope to see a lot more actual personal recce and spr pictures posted besides mine. I know, I know...I'm a straight sucker for gun porn and pics but I believe they enhance these online threads so much so again as long as it's "textbook", please post em up.

Scoby
08-14-11, 19:06
Lastly, I just shot my first 40 rds. of the PRZI 75r.hpbt..20 rds. through the recce and spr, along with shooting a box the 69gr. PRZI hpbt variety through the recce and spr, and I was highly disappointed in the 69gr. stuff, and am for sure ordering 100 or 200rds more of the 75gr. stuff...Ive heard that you just have to get the most current batches or yr 2010 and up.

..................

Also, I'm gonna work my way back and repopulate as best as I can the information I childishly removed, just updated the velocity data portion from pg 5.

As I've said before, I've had great results from the PPU 75gr Match loading. You obviously see potential there as well if you're ordering more. Not as powerful as TAP or some of the other more expensive loadings but serves my needs fine.

Never tried the 69gr stuff.

I hope you can repopulate the thread. Now, get to work.;)

GD4
08-21-11, 21:08
SPR lower 75% complete

http://i682.photobucket.com/albums/vv189/ssggfield/002-15.jpg

ra2bach
08-22-11, 13:07
Thanks for continuing to weigh in guys... Overall thoughts, questions, build spec's, build pic's, etc. are all welcome and appreciated. Just remember this is a strict definition Recce and SPR thread and although I deleted my personal parameters or guidelines, M4C is certainly smart enough to know what is applicable and what isn't.

Someone smarter than me in terms of ballistic math and the like can hopefully weigh in a bit but after today's brief session this evening I think I have come to another solid observation and potentially advantage/disadvantage in the arena.

Bear in mind for me to have observed the following conclusion/information I have had to shoot these two guns on the exact same occasion...with the exact same ammunition, exact target/distance, and overall keeping the exact shooting conditions while formulating this "conclusion" of mine. So although I shoot these guns at least once weekly, it's only about 2-3 times a month that I get them out at distance together to compare and analyze.

So with that said, I honestly believe if you plan to shoot in windy conditions @ extreme ranges(700yds and up) than the extra 90-120fps generated by the SPR 18" has a clear and perhaps distant advantage over the Recce 16". I had 29/30 hits w/ the SPR @ 725yds using SF 53gr. Vmax.....I had 24/30 hits w/ the Recce @ 725yds using SF 53gr. Vmax.

At these extreme long ranges for a 5.56, that extra 100fps I believe makes a noticeable difference in terms of hits on a 12"x20" CMP steel target. This is also applicable for if the shooter is shooting in perhaps not so much extremely windy conditions, but conditions in which the bullet tracks across multiple wind directions/strengths of wind gusts. Bottom line is that I believe at extreme LR in heavy wind(10-20mph), the SPR wins this particular battle in the overall war for LW-P supremacy.


http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC01326-1.jpg


eta..Scoby...your a good pal of mine and you had nothing to do w. my childish editing, you have always been extremely supportive and a voice in which I have come to respect very much..esp. since you own such a beautiful and well executed SPR. In total honesty it was really just one member, I love the rest of M4C:)

if you're shooting at 500+ yards with 53 gr bullets, you're doing it wrong...

ALCOAR
08-22-11, 13:19
Here ya go champ....thankfully I rely on real life shooting for verification of what works and what doesn't, instead of folks simply telling me I'm doing it wrong.

Spend as much time behind these guns as I do and document that, I then come and tell me I'm doing it wrong:)

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC00725-1-1.jpg

Mythbusting: .223 55gr.(vmax) ammo at long range (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEtnjinYyZo)

ra2bach
08-23-11, 02:54
Here ya go champ....thankfully I rely on real life shooting for verification of what works and what doesn't, instead of folks simply telling me I'm doing it wrong.

Spend as much time behind these guns as I do and document that, I then come and tell me I'm doing it wrong:)

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/DSC00725-1-1.jpg

Mythbusting: .223 55gr.(vmax) ammo at long range (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEtnjinYyZo)

actually, champ, I've spent quite a bit of time shooting iron-sighted carry-handle service rifles, prone, unsupported (that's right - no rest, bipod, or butt bag) out to 600 yards in a competition previously called DCM (Department of Civilian Marksmanship) but now called CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program). we measured our results by number of x's, 10's, 9's, 8's, etc., to get our score.

most of us handloaded our own ammunition with hand weighed cases and a critical eye to powder type and burn rate, primer pocket uniforming, bullet seating depth, neck thickness and tension, and other tricks of the trade. and it's not by accident that the bullet of choice for 200 and 300 yards was the 69gr SMK as it was cheaper and just as good at those ranges as the 77gr SMK we used beyond that. beyond 300 though, the 77gr showed definite advantages over the 69gr though some were experimenting with heavier Bergers in the load one/shoot one deal as they were too long to feed from a magazine.

now why do you think this is? take it on faith when I say it's because it worked... and with thousands of shooters across the country all trying to achieve the holy grail of accuracy, no one, and I mean NO ONE was shooting anything less than 65gr and attempting to seriously compete.

as far as your all-knowing, all-arrogant real-life verification of what works, all I can see in your videos is a kid with too much money for expensive internet flavor of the month toys getting all excited about ringing a bell. your shooting is graded on a pass/fail (ring the gong-pass, no gong-fail). you got a video camera and some expensive shit. BFD, you still KNOW nothing...

now, if you're really interested in learning how to shoot LD, instead of ballistically self-gratifying on camera to post on the interwebs (OOOH, I saw TRACE! isn't that COOL???) set up a scoring target out there and compare your scores with different loads, bullet weights, etc. you'll soon learn why if you're shooting 53gr at 500+ yards you're doing it wrong, all by your little old self.

set up some wind flags, or better yet, learn to READ that trace you just discovered and/or mirage to figure your wind values. do all this for a few thousand rounds to find the best load your gun likes and then work on, NPA (yes, you even use this with prone), breath control, shooting between pulses, etc., and then record those scores. get into the Zen of shooting. realize that your scores can vary a lot just by how tight you hold the gun, etc., etc...

and learn a little ****in' humility. there's people out there who have been shooting better than you for longer than you've been alive and in my experience they are delighted to share what they have learned. but arrogant assholes who brag over having a glass of milk when they could have the whole cow just piss them off...

slomo
08-23-11, 07:15
IMHO there's way too much testosterone busting and crap slinging here. I don't care how someone chooses to spend their money or whether they're right or wrong compared to my beliefs and experience. If we could all stay in our lane and try to bring something positive to this site we'd all be happier.
Again, IMHO, Trident's writing style can be over the top but he shares some interesting observations and his energy and willingness to share is a positive. I did not read that he said a 55gr bullet was superior to a 69 or 77gr bullet for long distance shooting. Does he have expensive gear? Yes, but it's none of my business how he spends his money or how he got it. Does he have a lot to learn? Yes, but we all do.
TRIDENT, you put your observations on public display in an arena that inherently aggressive. Pick your battles. If someone disagrees with you, ask for their opinion rather than defend yours. Beware of the dog who doesn't bark.

ra2bach
08-24-11, 02:29
IMHO there's way too much testosterone busting and crap slinging here. I don't care how someone chooses to spend their money or whether they're right or wrong compared to my beliefs and experience. If we could all stay in our lane and try to bring something positive to this site we'd all be happier.
Again, IMHO, Trident's writing style can be over the top but he shares some interesting observations and his energy and willingness to share is a positive. I did not read that he said a 55gr bullet was superior to a 69 or 77gr bullet for long distance shooting. Does he have expensive gear? Yes, but it's none of my business how he spends his money or how he got it. Does he have a lot to learn? Yes, but we all do.
TRIDENT, you put your observations on public display in an arena that inherently aggressive. Pick your battles. If someone disagrees with you, ask for their opinion rather than defend yours. Beware of the dog who doesn't bark.

you're right. and I apologize to Trident and to anyone else who was offended by my remarks, as I was just as guilty of making assumptions and condescending statements as he was...

slomo
08-24-11, 06:22
ra2bach, Well said. Thank you. Anyone with bach in their name has to have a lot of redeeming qualities.

ALCOAR
08-24-11, 06:55
http://i54.tinypic.com/25uo29x.jpg
http://i51.tinypic.com/11r6irt.jpg
http://i52.tinypic.com/mjtjzp.jpg

ALCOAR
08-24-11, 07:10
Damn 55gr. bullets....

http://i54.tinypic.com/qpfgn4.jpg
http://i53.tinypic.com/zsvc01.jpg

Scoby
08-24-11, 08:24
you're right. and I apologize to Trident and to anyone else who was offended by my remarks, as I was just as guilty of making assumptions and condescending statements as he was...

Yes. Well said.

Whether or not you are impressed with what Trident is presenting here depends alot on what type of shooting you like to accomplish with an AR.

I'm not really a paper puncher type shooter. I shoot from a bench mostly to confirm zero and evaluate different ammo. But if that's what you like, then great.

I'll say this. At the 600, 700 yard ranges that Trident is shooting in the videos, a lighter bullet would drop less but have much less energy at impact. Throw wind into the equation and a heavier bullet makes more sense because of less drift.

If I was to have to shoot a real bad guy at that range, I'd take a heavier 75gr bullet all day long.

Shooting steel at any range, in any shooting position, with any load / rifle combination, is a hell of alot of fun.

ra2bach
08-24-11, 10:40
Yes. Well said.

Whether or not you are impressed with what Trident is presenting here depends alot on what type of shooting you like to accomplish with an AR.

I'm not really a paper puncher type shooter. I shoot from a bench mostly to confirm zero and evaluate different ammo. But if that's what you like, then great.

I'll say this. At the 600, 700 yard ranges that Trident is shooting in the videos, a lighter bullet would drop less but have much less energy at impact. Throw wind into the equation and a heavier bullet makes more sense because of less drift.

If I was to have to shoot a real bad guy at that range, I'd take a heavier 75gr bullet all day long.

Shooting steel at any range, in any shooting position, with any load / rifle combination, is a hell of alot of fun.

on a KD (known distance) range, bullet drop is not an issue. I'm not talking about energy on target. I'm talking about poking tiny little holes in paper as close together as you can and then counting the X's and 0's.

I'm not a smart man, but I've been around some... and with a bit of closed-mouth observation to see what works and what doesn't, I've noticed the most successful LD shooters are striving for the heaviest/longest bullet they can find. Highpower shooters have even gone to using a VLD (very low drag) bullets so long that they don't fit into the mag and have to load one-shoot one. other LD shooters as well.

Palma limits you to 155gr/.308 bullets but F-class (Open) is a run-what-you-brung. F/TR allows .308 and .223 only, and in .30 cal. 168 to 190gr is the order of the day. do a search and see what the preferred .223 cal bullet is. I can absolutely guarantee you the weight in grains doesn't begin with the numeral 5...

a smart person would ask why that is. it's because longer bullets generally have a better BC (Ballistic Coefficient) and are less affected by wind and drag and they remain supersonic out to the distances they are shooting. heavier bullets generally give better SD (standard deviation) in velocity, all of which makes your impacts more predictable and repeatable. accuracy (however you measure it) is reliant on those two things...

the videos I have seen posted here are not really impressive of anything other than the beautiful landscape. FWIW, somewhere there is a review of the SWFA SS 1-4 HD scope with far better results at 500 and 750 yards than any of the videos I've seen here. it's a matter of knowing what you are doing...

Scoby
08-24-11, 11:21
ra2bach

Don't disagree with you at all. You obviously have much more experience at long range than I do. Known or unknown.

I think the difference here is, what exactly are you attempting to acheive when shooting?

The smallest group at long range? Or, is it to hit a IDPA target, paper or steel, in the kill zone? For me it's the latter and it is obviously not as intensive a skill as MOAs at 400 yds, but a skill nevertheless.

If I could only choose one bullet for longer ranges, it would be of the heavier variety.

ra2bach
08-24-11, 13:39
ra2bach

Don't disagree with you at all. You obviously have much more experience at long range than I do. Known or unknown.

I think the difference here is, what exactly are you attempting to acheive when shooting?

The smallest group at long range? Or, is it to hit a IDPA target, paper or steel, in the kill zone? For me it's the latter and it is obviously not as intensive a skill as MOAs at 400 yds, but a skill nevertheless.

If I could only choose one bullet for longer ranges, it would be of the heavier variety.

accuracy is accuracy. if all you want to do is hit a 12x20 at whatever range, eventually you'll find a range or conditions where you don't get the hits you want.

the purpose of shooting at a target and scoring it is to provide reliable data for comparison. it stands to reason that the component that gets the smallest group will also allow you to hit your IDPA, steel, whatever, in the kill zone more of the time at longer ranges and/or worsening conditions. if component A gets you 73% and component B gets you 87%, which would you rather use?

a simple search of the sports where people compete for extreme accuracy at long range can cut through a lot of the chaff. competition improves the breed and there are no competitive shooters that use anything but the best identified equipment, components, and techniques. the rest is "if I do my part"...

Scoby
08-24-11, 15:38
I understand the accuracy / record keeping aspect of this. I do.

I may need to clarify something. When I shoot my IDPA steel, know I hit it because I can hear it. And, most of the time I'm not just pounding away at it. After each string I hop on the 4 wheeler to see where my shots were impacting. Spray paint them and go again. It's not like I don't know where my shots are impacting the target or what effect the wind may have on a given day. I do learn while doing this. I'm more of a see him, shoot him, kill him kind of guy. :D Just don't care to get that technical with it.

My weapons aren't what I'd really call precision weapons anyway. The closest thing I've got to one is my 16" Noveske w/ a Leupold 1.5 x 5.


........ eventually you'll find a range or conditions where you don't get the hits you want.


Isn't this statement true of target shooters as well if they don't know the exact range of the target, temp., wind speed, BP and other conditions?

ra2bach
08-24-11, 20:02
I understand the accuracy / record keeping aspect of this. I do.

I may need to clarify something. When I shoot my IDPA steel, know I hit it because I can hear it. And, most of the time I'm not just pounding away at it. After each string I hop on the 4 wheeler to see where my shots were impacting. Spray paint them and go again. It's not like I don't know where my shots are impacting the target or what effect the wind may have on a given day. I do learn while doing this. I'm more of a see him, shoot him, kill him kind of guy. :D Just don't care to get that technical with it.

My weapons aren't what I'd really call precision weapons anyway. The closest thing I've got to one is my 16" Noveske w/ a Leupold 1.5 x 5.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ra2bach View Post
........ eventually you'll find a range or conditions where you don't get the hits you want.

Isn't this statement true of target shooters as well if they don't know the exact range of the target, temp., wind speed, BP and other conditions?

some people chase X's, some like the satisfying "bong" of a silhouette struck way out past wherever. so accuracy/record keeping is not an end to itself if all you are interested in is ringing steel. but it is a tool... it allows you to identify the most accurate components that the rifle is capable of shooting and I think that's of interest regardless what you do.

I don't think you can make a case that says "I'm only shooting steel at 600 yards so I don't need accuracy". it's not the little bug-hole groups you're interested in, it's the repeatability. would a gun/bullet that groups 6" at 600 yards be more consistent than one that shoots 12" groups? hell yeah...

if you're spraying 15 or 16 shots out of 20 all over your 12x20, going out further, or change conditions, and you'll start dropping more. a better bullet/load will help you make more hits at the same distance, allow you to stretch the distance, or keep more of our rounds on target if a puff of wind kicks up.

but we're getting away from my point. if you have a love affair with a certain thing, but other people doing the same activity successfully but using a different thing, are you actually getting as good a result as you can? this ain't rocket surgery...

my point about eventually finding a range where you aren't getting the hits you want is all about your choices. at 200 and 300 yards, the 69gr SMKs gave as good performance as was needed while being cheaper to buy and load. however, at 600 yards, everyone stepped up to the 77gr. there was a reason for that...