Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 92

Thread: Perfecting the Recce concept: The case for .308/7.62

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,117
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)

    Perfecting the Recce concept: The case for .308/7.62

    No wheels being reinvented here gents, but rather just wanted to share some more of my always evolving thoughts on one of my favorite niches within the realm of ARs...the light precision 16" configuration. Any discussion or opinions on topic that get stirred up are certainly welcomed. With my normal caveat I'll just emphasize that everything contained below is nothing more than my personal thoughts, ideas, and found conclusions in regards to the Recce concept.

    For the purposes of this thread/discussion, the Recce concept will be defined as a 16" match barreled AR that incorporates several key components in order to create a highly accurized AR/M4 rifle. Match grade barrels, mid range variable powered optics, 2 stage triggers, long FF rails, bipods, etc., are all components that often times are found on Recce configured rifles.

    Lastly, and without diving back into the history books, the origins of the Recce/Recon/Seal Recon Rifle/sniper-m4 concept all lie within the original Special Purpose Receiver (SPR) program in which the SPR/MK 12 rifles have now grown out of. So traditionally speaking, the Recce concept is based, and designed around the .223/5.56 caliber for the record.

    Defining the critical areas, and requirements associated with the Recce concept


    1.)
    Must achieve high levels of accuracy/Precision on command: Generally 1 MOA or less is the norm for a Recce configured rifle with match quality ammo. These accuracy/precision capabilities must be readily repeatable, and on command regardless of the conditions that may be present...i.e. what you know you can hit VS. what you think you can hit.

    2.)Significantly increases maximum effective range(MER): With the large aid of powered optics on a Recce, one can expect to see on average around a 40% increase in max effective range(MER) over a standard RDS/iron sight equipped AR/M4. Personally I've found this translates to roughly 200-300yds more over a standard AR/M4....AR/M4 = 4-500yds Recce = 6-800yds (YMMV).


    3.) Overall must maintain max portability while fully satisfying the first two critical areas above. Without precision, and increased max effective range, portability doesn't offer anything different that the standard 14.5"/16" AR/M4 doesn't already offer. Nonetheless, portability is a vital part of the Recce concept. By nature, this rifle concept is one in which it will be humped essentially the same as a patrol AR, or standard M4 would be regardless if your a soldier or hunter whom uses it. Traditionally speaking, a good average weight for a Recce rifle is around 9-11lbs, and an OAL between 32"- 34".


    First critical area: A Recce should be capable of delivering very high levels of repeatable accuracy and precision on command. After examining numerous 10rd/100yd groups with both .223/.308 Recce rifles, I can find no discernible decrease in accuracy/precision between either specimen. Both can continually produce sub MOA/10rd groups with several types of factory match quality type ammo. I'm just posting some handy, rather cherry picked group examples just to display the almost equal level of accuracy/precision on both these rifles.

    MWS Recce:
    http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/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"

    Last edited by ALCOAR; 04-29-12 at 18:38.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,117
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    I'll conclude my 7.62/.308 case with some strong evidence from the wild......dare I say real Recce rifles in combat

    LMT L129A1s with 16" SST barrels and magnified optics....










    HK 417s with 16" barrels and magnified optics...





    Scar 17s with 16" barrels and magnified optics...




  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    807
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    I like the recce concept. Still trying to save up enough to either buy a complete recce upper in 5.56 or wait longer to get an LMT MWS 308. The 308 is very appealing.
    http://www.m4carbine.net/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=20651&dateline=1303766618

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    KCMH
    Posts
    2,985
    Feedback Score
    0
    Wait for the LMT MWS, you will not be disappointed. Meanwhile, look up Tridents videos on long range MWS fun.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,246
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    I agree with pretty much everything Trident. There's some overlap with the DMR thread in this discussion, so I'll just reiterate and repost some of the things I wrote in that thread, specifically things related to the advantages of a 16'' 7.62 gas gun.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is the first I'm seeing this post. I'm going to briefly touch on one of the original issues....5.56 vs 7.62 for a DMR.

    As Sniper Section Leader, I was heavily involved in TTP development as it relates to SDM's throughout the unit at large. Official doctrine is lacking, and units are thinking out of the FM 7-8 box as they should be.

    It needs to be 7.62 and here is why (bear with me as I arrive at my point):

    The vast majority of kinetic operations carried about by infantry in the contemporary operating environment (COE) are kill / capture missions. At its basic level the formula is simple....support by fire and assault.

    Current edit: this is not really true anymore as far a Kill/Capture being an everyday infantry task, but the point still stands.

    Keep in mind that due to Afghanistan's extreme terrain, SBF positions are often further away from the elements they are tasked with supporting than is ideal. It is not uncommon for the SBF to be 600-800 Meters from the target house and even further from the Assault element at the beginning of their movement. Yet the SBF is still fully expected to support them.

    SDM's are rightly being placed solely on support by fire lines, and here is why. In Afghanistan, assaulting elements are often in small arms contact during movement to the target house. Effective support by fire is absolutely critical for their success and safety. Current doctrine dictates that supporting fires from M240's and MK48's must be kept at least 15 degrees ahead of assaulting elements when the guns are tripod mounted. You're looking at double that on bipods.

    So, the machine guns are often forced to completely lift fire to prevent fratricide, even as assaulting elements are still in contact and have to move considerable distances under fire with no support from machine guns. Sure, those elements have organic MK46's, but what happens when they are effectively suppressed? This issue is exacerbated exponentially with an increase in range due to the angular nature of the surface danger zone standard.

    Enter the SDM. At no time does the SDM have to lift fire. Under direction of the SBF senior leader, an SDM may continue to engage point targets on the objective in close proximity to the assaulters. They may even continue to engage the upper floors of a building as friendly elements are breaching at ground level. The expansion of a machine gun's cone of fire makes this relatively unsafe at 700-800M.

    With a 5.56 DMR, this capability is severely degraded at extended range. When the 7.62 MG's have to go silent, what will replace them? Without a 7.62 DMR, the answer is nothing. No-go.


    Lastly, the KAC SR-25 EMC in 7.62MM with a 16'' barrel and a NF 2.5-10 would be about as ideal a DMR platform as one can imagine. The M14 EBR's are having a lot of issues and are not well liked by anybody that I know. Yet the capability mentioned above that it brings to organic infantry platoons cannot be overstated. Until the M14 is replaced (the sooner the better), it will continue to fill an important role in daily combat operations.

    Current edit: we were talking about M110 carbines in that thread and my KAC recommendation mostly hinged on that possibility. It's the characteristics of the rifle that matter in this discussion (16'' and 7.62). LMT, KAC, and others all offer viable options. Also, a NF 2.5-10 is probably not the BEST choice either. Not sure what exactly I was thinking when I wrote that, but it probably came out of a sense of realism about what we could possibly end up with.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Last edited by a0cake; 04-30-12 at 22:12.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Midland, Georgia
    Posts
    2,058
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    The base role for the Recce was/is to give eyes-on-target Sniper-Observer teams the ability to get close while providing a more capable/longer 5.56 reach and an emergency assault and/or break contact capability. The S/O role does not equate to a GP Forces Sniper or DM.

    TTP-wise at the time (going back to the mid-late 80s) the S/Os are in-close while you have a security force controlling an outer perimeter and avenues of approach. A 14.5 Colt 723/ pre-M4 carbine did not give the same capability as a precise/slow bolt gun, an M25, or first-generation SR25, and was marginal for a break-contact capability (even with a short-barrel M203)..

    The niche today would be perfectly filled by a mid-length 5.56, a KAC EMC, or an AR-10T Carbine. The LMT fits the niche while adding a little weight for the interchangeable barrel capability (nice to have/mission-enhancing but not mission essential). A well-worked / no malfunctions / stoppages DPMS AP4 Carbine would also fit the size/weight niche.

    I have no experience with the SCAR-Heavy but there seem to be both fans and detractors for that weapon as well.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    2,317
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    I shall respectfully disagree with the OP. I don't see a need for an accurized 16" .308 AR. I think a rack-grade carbine with the addition of a good optic can fulfill the Recce role. The new SEAL "Recce" rifle is in fact nothing more than the SCAR-L. That's a 5.56 rifle with a 14.5" barrel.

    There is something to say about Sinister's point though:

    "A 16-inch 7.62 carbine is a natural for at least one foot-maneuvering squad dogface. He can be an assaulter and do his jack-of-all-trades infantry mission without being restricted to an overwatch role."

    The standard SCAR-H with 16" barrel and high-power optic is already being used in the "precision" role:







    I started a discussion about this in this thread:

    https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=101613
    "The secret to happiness is freedom, and the secret to freedom is courage." - Thucydides, c. 410 BC

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    5,117
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    An educated dissenting opinion in my book is just as valuable as a confirmatory one in terms of bettering the overall discussion

    I did let the monkey outta the box though already when I introduced the box of legos into this discussion....something dies inside of me every time I combine the words Recce, and SCAR




  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    NM
    Posts
    4,157
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    I agree with wes that a rack grade .308 carbine with a precision optic and good match ammunition can be more than adequate, but I would contend that the funds for the latter two parts being available are an artifact of GWOT, and that in the upcoming austere DoD, we'll be back to program of record weapon systems, so a dedicated 'precision' variant that has clip-on NV equipment, bipods, ballistics software; logistics support for parts, maintenance, and match ammo; and a training program behind it to make the important part of the DM equation effective will be a priority, or else the next conflict, the big army will be 'discovering' that all these ideas and hardware are requisite for the job.
    عندما تصبح الأسلحة محظورة, قد يملكون حظرون عندهم فقط
    کله چی سلاح منع شوی دی، یوازي غلوونکۍ یی به درلود
    Semper Fi
    "Being able to do the basics, on demand, takes practice. " - Sinister

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    2,317
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Well Mr. Llama, if the past is any guide, the post-conflict drawdown will mean that the whole issue of specialized weapons will be dropped. The existance of SOCOM however might mean that the knowledge will hopefully not be lost, and that the evolution and perfection of small numbers of evolved weapons will continue.
    "The secret to happiness is freedom, and the secret to freedom is courage." - Thucydides, c. 410 BC

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •