........
........
Last edited by ALCOAR; 07-15-11 at 19:37.
Sweet thread! Lots of great info. I WANT TAP T2 SO BAD!!!
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?
Originally Posted by rob_s
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.
One doesn't need to be sick to get better.
Hi hikeeba!
You forgot carbine (Recce) vs. rifle (SPR) length gas systems.
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.
Last edited by Warg; 05-12-11 at 16:31.
One doesn't need to be sick to get better.
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)?
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.
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
......
Last edited by ALCOAR; 07-15-11 at 19:38.
"Intelligence is not the ability to regurgitate information. It is the ability to make sound decisions on a consistent basis "--me
"Just remember, when you are talking to the average person, you are talking to a television set"--RDJB
One Big Ass Mistake America
Bookmarks