No wheels being reinvented here gents, but rather just wanted to share some more of my always evolving thoughts on one of my favorite niches within the realm of ARs...the light precision 16" configuration. Any discussion or opinions on topic that get stirred up are certainly welcomed. With my normal caveat I'll just emphasize that everything contained below is nothing more than my personal thoughts, ideas, and found conclusions in regards to the Recce concept.
For the purposes of this thread/discussion, the Recce concept will be defined as a 16" match barreled AR that incorporates several key components in order to create a highly accurized AR/M4 rifle. Match grade barrels, mid range variable powered optics, 2 stage triggers, long FF rails, bipods, etc., are all components that often times are found on Recce configured rifles.
Lastly, and without diving back into the history books, the origins of the Recce/Recon/Seal Recon Rifle/sniper-m4 concept all lie within the original Special Purpose Receiver (SPR) program in which the SPR/MK 12 rifles have now grown out of. So traditionally speaking, the Recce concept is based, and designed around the .223/5.56 caliber for the record.
Defining the critical areas, and requirements associated with the Recce concept
1.) Must achieve high levels of accuracy/Precision on command: Generally 1 MOA or less is the norm for a Recce configured rifle with match quality ammo. These accuracy/precision capabilities must be readily repeatable, and on command regardless of the conditions that may be present...i.e. what you know you can hit VS. what you think you can hit.
2.)Significantly increases maximum effective range(MER): With the large aid of powered optics on a Recce, one can expect to see on average around a 40% increase in max effective range(MER) over a standard RDS/iron sight equipped AR/M4. Personally I've found this translates to roughly 200-300yds more over a standard AR/M4....AR/M4 = 4-500yds Recce = 6-800yds (YMMV).
3.) Overall must maintain max portability while fully satisfying the first two critical areas above. Without precision, and increased max effective range, portability doesn't offer anything different that the standard 14.5"/16" AR/M4 doesn't already offer. Nonetheless, portability is a vital part of the Recce concept. By nature, this rifle concept is one in which it will be humped essentially the same as a patrol AR, or standard M4 would be regardless if your a soldier or hunter whom uses it. Traditionally speaking, a good average weight for a Recce rifle is around 9-11lbs, and an OAL between 32"- 34".
First critical area: A Recce should be capable of delivering very high levels of repeatable accuracy and precision on command. After examining numerous 10rd/100yd groups with both .223/.308 Recce rifles, I can find no discernible decrease in accuracy/precision between either specimen. Both can continually produce sub MOA/10rd groups with several types of factory match quality type ammo. I'm just posting some handy, rather cherry picked group examples just to display the almost equal level of accuracy/precision on both these rifles.
MWS Recce:
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/a...2/target75.jpg
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/a...2/target42.jpg
VS.
MRP Recce:
http://i39.tinypic.com/fycxoz.jpg
http://i51.tinypic.com/30xg66g.jpg
After shooting, and then examining large group samples for each rifle (numerous amounts of 10rd/100yd groups), I've found that both rifles dip well below the 1moa or less requirement, and neither one as far as I can tell gives up anything to the other in this arena.
Second critical area: Increases max effective ranges, and ability to engage targets with precise/accurate fire in difficult conditions or at intermediate to longer ranges.
I used two main things to evaluate, compare, and ultimately formulate the max effective ranges. Firstly, I used my own extensive trigger time while shooting these rifles at long ranges to determine, and then validate true max effective ranges....i.e. real world evidence. Over the last year or two I've become very confident in exactly what these rifles will, and won't do in terms of long ranges. The max effective ranges for each rifle I came to were based on reliability, and repeatability....and NOT a measure of lucky hits, random successes, or the all time best.
Secondly, I created, and analyzed the ballistic charts for each rifle using it's actual military match grade ammo...i.e. theoretical evidence. The charts were created using actual MV that I collected. Outside of lots of time behind these rifles at long ranges, these charts if examined closely should give one the next best tool in order to evaluate which Recce in question will yield the longest max effective ranges, and which one will do so with significantly increased lethality.
Notes on the ballistic charts below:
The most important/informational part in the charts below is the windage values for the purposes of this discussion. Be sure to study the amounts of windage at the various distance intervals along the 1000yd chart. After the windage, the next most relevant and informative data in the charts would be observing the actual velocities of the rounds throughout the 1000yd chart. Even more specifically, pay attention to the velocities of the rounds when traveling from 600-1000yds. Why is that info important for this discussion?......because we're concerned with the regions at which our rounds enter transonic flight, and bullet stability becomes a concern for particular projectiles. Luckily both the 77gr. SMK, and the 175gr. SMK aren't known to suffer major stability issues when going transonic unlike the 168gr. SMK for example. The charts will reflect that the MWS Recce using M118LR will remain barely supersonic for the entire 1000yds, whereas then you'll note that the MRP Recce using MK262 Mod1 starts to enter transonic flight sometime shortly past 800yds.
That windage difference between the two plays largely into my belief that the .223 Recce is a reliable 800yd rifle, whereas the .308 Recce is a reliable 1000yd rifle. I've had some limited success with the .223 Recce and SPR rifles at 1k, however there is very little rhyme or reason to it. On the other hand, the .308 Recce in a skilled shooter's hands is easily a very consistent 1K capable rifle. Once you get to 600yds or so with both these rifles, it's crystal clear how much easier it is to land hits with a .308 vs. .223.
In short, the .308 Recce will generally yield a 200-300yd increase in effective range over it's little brother, and that alone makes most of the .308/7.62 case in my book.
Ballistic charts:
Third critical area...portability: both rifles maintain incredibly portable configurations considering the range and precision abilities that are built into them.
The .223 Recce is extremely handy and portable I've found, but so is the .308 Recce. Ultimately it comes down to whether the end user is willing to trade roughly 1-1.75lbs in weight for the ability to increase max effective range out to 1k, as well as exponentially increase the actual lethality and knock down punch behind the rounds fired. Personally, I'll take that trade 10/10 times. I've found that either one of these rifles is almost as easily humped as the other, and the big difference lies b/t the shoot-ability of the .223 vs. .308..i.e. recoil, and loudness, rather than an extra pound here and there.
Here are the measurements on these rifles when keeping variables to a very minimum. Each rifle was recorded with two weights....1. the weight w/o the optic, bipod, or mag., and 2. The weight of the rifle fully configured with mag (both rifles were weighed with the same kit...i.e. optic, and bipod).
MRP Recce .223:
1.) 7.60 lbs
2.) 9.86 lbs
OAL: 33"
MWS Recce .308:
1.) 9.51 lbs
2.) 11.98 lbs
OAL: 34"
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks