The trend for Recce rifles is to have 12" handguards, but have any of you guys here built one with a 9" handguard? This would still leave room for a standard rail cover, and a bipod mount.
I’ve read on various forums that the NSWC was not entirely pleased with the Mark 12 as a result of the Recce concept. The criticisms were that it was too heavy, and too precision oriented.
I don’t see that a 12 inch rail is a set in stone requirement for a recce build. To my mind, the recce build is a general purpose rifle that can function as a DMR, and a general purpose carbine - a concept built in an era where the standard issue weapon was still largely a iron sighted A2 or M4. Really in todays world a M4 with an ACOG would perfectly fufill the original concept for a recce.
To add on top of all of this, we have the Magpul school of thought on weapon grips which requires long handguards for their style of gripping rifles.
Personally I’m not a big fan of the 12 inch rail requirement, simply for added weight penalties. Sure it gets BUIS sight picture out there, but you have a significant weight gain (I come from the super light school of thought), and no real benefit unless you run your support hand way out there.
YMMV.
Those are my random thoughts.:big_boss:
I’m running a KAC midlength 10" FF on my 16" barrel from Centurion. I’m really happy with it.
I use the full length 12" FF KAC on my SPR upper.
Interesting! Still, there is a desire out there in certain quarters for something more precise than an M4/ACOG, but still compact- that is the origin of the Afghan concept, or so I have read.
I will be using a 9" handguard on a 16" middie (Noveske), so I’m not sure I can call it a Recce, though the only difference would be 3" of rail.
i did both in one… 12.0 FSBM… 9" to the FSB, then under/around. this was actually heavier than simply doing a straight 9 or 12, with a front folder, but i’m a stubborn sonuvabitch when it comes to fixed FSBs.
i later stuck a leupold vx3 on 'er, but apparently never got a pic. i didn’t care for the extra weight, and had an SPR for hunting, so this one got cannibalized.
was a cool rifle, just too mahfuckin heavy.
I run a CASV-M, mid-length handguard on my Recce.
For the most part, I agree with Saint Michael Arms, with exception of an M4 + ACOG = ‘Recce.’ Adding an ACOG onto an M4 does nothing to increase the mechanical accuracy of the rifle. It helps the shooter be more accurate with the rifle, but that’s all. The M4 with an ACOG still has an M4 barrel.
My understanding of the Recce concept is that it is an accurized M4 or 16" carbine; meaning that is has higher mechanical accuracy potential than the standard M4. The better accuracy potential is achieved by running a match-grade barrel of some sort. More often than not, the barrel is stainless steel, and usually has a profile that is heavier than the government M4 barrel profile. And while running a longer, free-float handguard seems to be one of the hallmarks of a Recce rifle, the length of the handguard isn’t what makes a 16" carbine a Recce rifle. Barrel length (16"), and the increased accuracy potential of an upgraded barrel are what make a Recce. That’s my interpretation, anyways.
Because there is no official designation for the ‘Recce’ rifle, the concept is pretty open for interpretation.
The difference in weight between a 9" and 12" rail is pretty minimal- the barrel nut and all that both weigh the same, and the aluminum used in the rail itself is very light. 12" rails on 16" barrels look the coolest, too, 10" on 12.5"-14.5", etc.
I have long arms, and tend to reach far out on the barrel to “drive the gun”. Plus, I want the front BUIS and flashlight to be as far forward as possible. If you’re dealing with barricades/support positions, more rail is generally better.
YMMV.
Pretty dead on the money imho…do not forget the longer rail puts the bipod out further which is very advantageous.
The weight of the extra few inches of the rail is VERY minimal.
This is a very interesting thread as I have been wondering for a while just what exactly constitutes a “Recce Rifle”.
Technically, the Recce (according to Wes @ MSTN) is comprised of the following:
A match-grade 1/8" twist 16" stainless steel barrel with a carbine-length gas system, fixed FSB, and a KAC QD FH Suppressor mount mounted onto an M4 lower.
Anything else is fair game - rails, optics, whatever. The big part is the 16" stainless barrel.
But it is an interesting, well thought-out interpretation!
True…YMMV of course, but I’m thinking that Recces are not often used off the bipod, since as argued above they are more of an accurized carbine rather than a full-blown SPR.
Thanks. I guess my interpretation is based more on the general concept of the Recce rifle/Recon carbine, and not so much on the actual components needed to emulate/replicate an actual Recce firearm. To quote numerous sources: ‘…a support weapon with greater range, lethality, and precision than the issue M4 Carbine,’ or something like that.
I’ve seen rifles ranging from those built as close as possible to the specs that Wes from MSTN states (see a few posts above), to an M4 upper with a shaved front sight base and a 12" FF railed handguard being referred to as Recce rifles. I do not think there is another AR-15 style that is as broadly interpretted than the Recce/Recon rifle.
Here’s my Recce-ish build around a Superior Barrels ‘Amynta’ Recce barrel:
Speaking of shorter handguards, I guess a mid-gas Recce could look like this:
And for those who interpret a Recce as a 16" carbine with an extended handguard, here’s my 9mm Recce (old pic):
:laugh: All in good fun.
Here is my Recce with a Troy handguard as she sits now. Still contemplating on which optic to use.
^ pretty sure a Recce needs a free-floated barrel.
And a stainless one at that. A CMV/Moly barrel won’t cut it. The point of a Recce is to squeeze every last bit of accuracy possible out of its compact size. If it’s not stainless, it’s not a Recce (or Recce-clone).
what about a recce with a centurion CHF taper-bored CMV barrel? more accurate than most stainless barrels, by accounts.
I agree. I suppose it gets trick when talking about the widely available custom builds on a civil/LEO side vs issue equipment for armed forces. Any free floated AR is easily a 1.5 to 1 moa rifle with match ammo; M4 or government profile 20" barrel or not.
Thus to my mind, free float the barrel, and get some match grade ammo, and you are firmly into recce territory. Asking much beyond 1 moa out of a GP carbine is pushing it. I really don’t see how a heavier profile barrel will improve the accuracy of the gun, except maybe make POI shift less dramatic when using a can.
I should say I am a weight Nazi. Ounces make up pounds! Rails and free float tubes are getting pretty dang light, so this issue seems to be drying up, but still a shorter rail is worth it to me for weight savings and balance of a rifle. I haven’t totally bought into the magpul school of thought on extended arms for CQB - not that it doesn’t work, just I haven’t been convinced it is the only way.
Sounds alot like my Noveske Recon 16.1"