The SR-15E3: Latest Developments and Input from III

[Army Chief]

We recently closed an SR-15E3 thread from much earlier in the year that had been resurrected about 48 hours ago in the interest of developing a more current and accessible conversation here.

The final page of that thread was tracking along the lines of more current and emerging SR topics, and as such, I wanted to excise some of III's comments there as a basis for advancing the discussion here.

Obviously, chief among these in view of impending SHOT activity is the release of a factory SBR variant of the rifle, though his thoughts on rail evolution and gas porting will also be of interest to many ...

On the URX rail:
Anti rotation has been incorporated on the new design but it will be a long time until they hit the market . Once we get a low cost wrench going we may put out some standard industry midlengths . Don't really see a big market for that kind of stuff right now.

On the prospects of seeing a 14.5" E3 gun:
We are doing a mid length gas system, rifle length URX 14.5" SR-16 so if we get any gov't orders for it that might mean they could be available as a SR-15 SBR since we are going to start to sell factory SBRs. I guess that all depends on how well the first run of 11.5" guns sell. I feel the AR market in general, right now is pretty saturated. I think whatever is not readily available will sell like hotcakes until they are in full production.

On SR-15E3 gas port dimensions:
As far as gas port sizes go ... Our guns are ported for a range of ammo, not just milspec. I would say that over ported guns will have just as much of a problem with hot loads as our guns have with weak loads; especially suppressed. It's all a bit of a compromise. There is a tendency lately to go towards hotter ammo to get the velocities up in shorter bbls. I would say that I would have a hard time believing our gun will not run more than 90% of the ammo out there after it is broken in that runs reliably in any other gun.

On reliability and corporate presence:
If you want to start bringing extractor spring replacement and suppressed fire into the mix I will put our gun up against any gun on the market for reliability. It is also not a custom gun, it is also almost entirely manufactured and assembled in our factory. We have been in the gun business for 20 something years and we are not going anywhere anytime soon. We are perhaps the largest US small arms manufacturing company owned and ran by a single person who you can call and talk to on the phone (on occasion).

Say what you want about the SR-15 E3, I know exactly what the gun is capable of because we have fired them to destruction. I would put it up against any gun out there.

AC

[scottryan]

The front sight on the URX prevents the mounting of a surfire X300 or similar light toward the front of the weapon.

I would like to see this changed. I'd rather have a real clamp on flip up front sight like the Troy or KAC.

I would say alot of people that buy a Daniel Defense rail would rather buy the KAC if the front flip up was eliminated.

If anti rotation is being incorporated, then this is good.

I also want to see a standard midlength URX for 10.5" barrels.

[Army Chief]

Scott,

I'm normally with you, but I don't fully understand your objection to the flip-up front sight -- which I actually think is a pretty well-thought-out solution, as executed. Worst case, you can easily mount your light over this section of rail, covering up the sight, and place a standard BUIS elsewhere on the rail. The KAC design actually gives you more options, not less. Am I missing something here?

I would agree that anti-rotation on the URX will be a good thing. Not a show-stopper by any means, but this is going to be a convenience issue for most.

AC

[scottryan]

Scott,

I'm normally with you, but I don't fully understand your objection to the flip-up front sight -- which I actually think is a pretty well-thought-out solution, as executed. Worst case, you can easily mount your light over this section of rail, covering up the sight, and place a standard BUIS elsewhere on the rail. The KAC design actually gives you more options, not less. Am I missing something here?

I would agree that anti-rotation on the URX will be a good thing. Not a show-stopper by any means, but this is going to be a convenience issue for most.

AC

I just want it gone. I want to mount a X300 here on a rigid rail, and not worry about anything.

I don't like the round hood front sight of the URX either. It should have outward ears like a regular AR-15 front sight or a Troy M4 front BUIS.

Round hooded front sights with an adjustable post are a fundamenatlly flawed system.

It obsurces too much of the target and forces the eye to center the hood with the rear aperature, not the post, which is incorrect.

[TehLlama]

I wouldn't necessarily want it gone, but something with rail space in front of it - a URX-MRE of sorts would work ideally for those of us wanting to run an X300/TLR1 at the 12:00 nose of the weapon.

That said, the low volume and associated development costs make that a pretty unreasonable request. A simplified sight-less UBR might actually be the more practical option, and then just rely on the rail mounted flip-up sights that Knight's also does so well.
This sort of bother would only make sense on the lightened URX units (modular rail ones), so I'm not expecting to see it soon, and I'm so happy with the M300 on Gearsector offset mount that this is an increasingly moot subject anyway.

[Army Chief]

I wouldn't consider any wish-list item overtly unreasonable, but as a matter of basic pragmatism, I think a manufacturer has to build a product he believes will (a) meet a need and (b) stand the test of time. For my purposes, the SR-15E3 strikes that balance very well, though it might not be the "everyman rifle" we might otherwise wish for it to be at times -- nor do I think that it was ever intended to be. You have to keep in mind that these rifles are KAC's interpretation of the lessons learned while they sat with Eugene Stoner and listened to him critique his own work, and not the result of a marketing focus group.

When you do look at trends in this market you find that, even within the past couple of years, we've been all over the place with respect to slings, vertical fore-grips, pistons, ambi controls, optics, stocks, rails and about 1,000 other things. It strikes me as unreasonable to expect a company primarily engaged in contract business to put too much stock in the latest consumer whims. Think about it: even the popular 12 o'clock X300 mount we discussed above is a relatively recent development in terms of consumer preference.

I don't say any of this in defense of KAC (they don't need my help), nor as a rebuttal of anyone else's observations, but I think we would agree that the box stock SR-15E3 offers a rock-solid 90% solution for most needs. Like everyone else, I have my own preferences, and I replaced my CH and FS accordingly. I might also have preferred to see first-run SBRs built on IWS (vice Vero) lowers, but we're talking about minutiae here, as all of these things are still possible. Where out-of-the-box competencies are concerned, I still rate the SR higher -- much higher -- than any other rifle that I own.

AC

[RAM Engineer]

I just want it gone. I want to mount a X300 here on a rigid rail, and not worry about anything.

I don't like the round hood front sight of the URX either. It should have outward ears like a regular AR-15 front sight or a Troy M4 front BUIS.

Round hooded front sights with an adjustable post are a fundamenatlly flawed system.

It obsurces too much of the target and forces the eye to center the hood with the rear aperature, not the post, which is incorrect.

I'm in 100% agreement with this. Besides the integral lower receiver QD swivels, the URX front sight was my biggest gripe. In addition to the poor shape of the hood, the pivot for the sight JUST BARELY left enough room for the gas tube without the two touching.

Also, I'd prefer staking instead of loc-tite on the stock castle nut, and pinning instead of or in addition to interference fit, set screwed gas block. I have no data to support that either of the last two are better, but it's a psychological issue for me.

[Belmont31R]

If you don't like the integrated front sight then there are other rail choices. It sets the URX apart from the rest of the pack, and I wouldn't want that removed so its like every other rail on the market.



Pinning the gas block couldn't hurt but I don't worry about it anyways. Its press fit on, and double set screw. Ive never heard of one coming loose.

[scottryan]

If you don't like the integrated front sight then there are other rail choices. It sets the URX apart from the rest of the pack, and I wouldn't want that removed so its like every other rail on the market.



Pinning the gas block couldn't hurt but I don't worry about it anyways. Its press fit on, and double set screw. Ive never heard of one coming loose.

The URX wouldn't be like every other rail on the market.

It is the only rail that you can removed the bottom from it, is FF, has integral QD sockets, isn't fat like a RIS2, and has even stud and grove picatinny spacing. It already has all this that no other rail has.

I would replace all my DD RIS2s in a heartbeat if the URX didn't have the front sight.

[jumbopanda]

What's "anti rotation?"

And Scottryan, what don't you like about the front sight?