This. the Recce rifle has always been a “concept” with no strict definition. Generally, they have been a 16" match grade barrel with a longer handguard and a low profile gas block. I think the originals had a carbine length gas system, but that was likely a result of midlength gas tubes not being in the supply chain.
To say that anything other than MSTN’s “clone” is incorrect is a stretch IMHO. Monty from Centurion Arms carries a Mk 12 for a living and is very well versed in the history of the recce. He sells a 16" midlength for recce builds in fact. I don’t think I would tell him that he is building them wrong.
Wes, it was nose heavy. I think a SOPMOD would have been a good companion to that rifle. Also, I think the MUR isn’t necessary. I have had two rifles with MUR uppers and I don’t really see a noticeable difference in my uppers with standard receivers.
I’ll refer to bkb0000’s post. While I always thought that SS and “match grade” were synonymous, the Centurion barrels have made me rethink that. Monty has gotten moa or better from his CL CHF barrels at something like 600 or 800 meters. That is pretty damn match grade in my book. Additionally, they are lighter than a traditional SS match barrel, which was probably my only complaint against my Noveske recon barreled upper.
Which brings me to my final thought. Wes, what kind of accuracy are you getting from your Centurion barreled upper? My only complaint against the SS barrels is their weight. If you can get similar accuracy from a Centurion, a similar build with a lightweight 12" rail might be a good compromise between weight, balance and accuracy. FWIW, if you don’t mind the weight and want to run something heavier than a CTR, the Noveske Recon was one hell of a shooter.
the weight is what makes the recce impractical, and really not desirable. like i said above, i just couldn’t handle the extra weight for what i wanted- an accurized M4 with a better effective range, basically. centurion, BEING MATCH GRADE, definitely changes that up… we’ll see how this hunting season goes with my current SPR… i may even re-try the recce again for next year, if i think i can lighten it up substantially.
Lately I’ve been thinking about going with an 18" SPR. The way I see it, if the 16" is already heavy and not really what I’m looking for in a carbine, why not go all the way for an accuracy driven upper? I guess I have beeen spoiled by the light weight nad faster handling of my SR15. Anything much heavier than that in a 16" platform just feels like a pig.
Because Less is more potentially given accuracy is the same or even better with a 16" recce vs. the 18" spr.
After exploring the topic of the two diff. respective builds for about 2 yrs now I am gonna take the true match grade recce over the true match grade SPR…I actually worked this whole topic out on paper as seen in the pic below:)
It sounds like you are rehashing the story of the Recce…the users want an accurized carbine; they recieve the SPR, which is more of a rifle. The SPR went on to be a very useful and effective weapon, but this is not to say there is not room for the Recce concept. In fact we also have the Afghan/Recon Scout 14.5" precision carbines, so there is also that to consider, as well.
True. I probably should qualify my statement to say that this may be what is best for me as a civi shooter with limited resources and time. The recce definitely has a place when it comes to specific mission requirements of real world shooters. But for me, a 16" middie is about the same no matter what barrel I’m using. Given that, I am gravitating towards having a 16" carbine geared toward light weight and a heavier, accuracy oriented SPR.
Back on topic, Wes if you go with the build you described, I would recommend a longer rail and a stock heavier than the CTR to balance things out. I like the longer rails for a couple of reasons. First, in my mind it just isn’t quite a recce without a long rail over the gas block, something in the 10-12" range. Second, my shooting style has changed and I prefer to grip the rail further out and the gas block location is where I seem to naturally place my hand. I’m not a full on extended arm, thumb over the top, MD style shooter, but I do prefer the extended grip.
Sortof still on topic, what is your opinion of the Centurion HF CL barrels? Are they accurate enough to fill the recce role? Let’s just forget the whole SS vs CMV discussion for a sec and talk about pure accuracy potential. I know you will probably use a SS barrel for your recce, I’m just asking out of pure curiousity.
I have not shot the Centurion for accuracy; I have an ACOG on it, and thought of it more as a “heavy duty” rather than a “precision” type carbine; interesting question though! To do a proper accuracy assessment, I would have to put my SPR’s scope on it, and try out several of the heavy 75 grain or heavier projectiles to see which it prefers. I don’t know if I have the time to do such a test though. Hammer-forged barrels might turn the current chromed carbon steel vs. stainless barrel paradigm on its head. Or it might not. I’ve heard the SCAR-17 with 16" lightweight CHF barrel is quite a performer as far as combat accuracy goes.
I have decided to go with a 9" HG for my build. Don’t get me wrong; long handguards are here to stay; here is a recent pic of USMC SOCOM in Afghanistan:
I will be using a DD Lite, so if the HG turns out to be too short, I will just buy a 12" and switch the front out, and put the old unit on the EE. Likewise, this is going on an existing lower (I’m in California, and have only three registered AW lowers), so for now it has a CTR tele; I will see how it balances, but I am loath to switch it out unless necessary, because I want to keep the weight to a minimum.
Just to show you though the need for a compact precision carbine, here is a pic from TF Ranger in Somalia, 1993:
If you’re going with a mid-length gas system and a fixed FSB, you know DD does make an extended Lite Rail with the cutout for the mid-length FSB (Lite Rail 12.0 FSPM). Could be the best of both worlds if ounces are not a primary concern. I’ve sort of been thinking about doing a build with one of those.
And I’m sorry to re-hash a dead topic but…
It almost looks to me like the fluted barrel could be something offered by Sabre Defense. Sabre makes fluted SS barrels, and IIRC they are based in the UK, which would put them in a good position to market to the European Union. That’s just a theory, however.
This thread has just about every thing in it except recce discussion.
FSP’s…short rails…CL/combat accurate barrels(same thing as an “un accurized” standard Colt M4…bipod has been maligned as well. No glass discussion which is arguably the biggest feature to a Recce.
I will bow out now as these “recce” threads usually end up discussing something that is in my book totally not a recce and I cannot help always thinking that some folks just want to build whatever they personal want in an AR drawing from across the spectrum in terms of specs/parts…and then attach the cool name of recce rifle to it, even if its function is no different than a normal 16" M4.
Sounds like you’re building exactly what I did a couple years back. Too bad you can’t swap out the stock for better balance. I’m not familiar with CA law, are you not allowed to change the configuration at all?
Oh I can change the stock out no problem. In fact I have a UBR on hand (for a future AR10 build), but the dang thing seems too heavy for a 5.56 build. And, this being California and me with only three registered AW lowers, besides the Recon this lower will also host another upper based on a Noveske N4 16" CHF bartrel with DD M4 RIS II handguard, and I thought the UBR might un-balance it to the rear with that upper. But maybe the Noveske will not be as light as I am expecting it to be…
I will take your word for it about your experience with your Recon build as far as balance goes. So, you said the rifle was heavy as is, but would have preferred a heavier stock to balance the piece out, even though this would make it heavier overall?
Umm… that’s simply not true. Wes @ MSTN did work with/on many of the original Recce rifles. To say a Recce is a concept vs a specific configuration is to say an SPR is a concept and that’s simply not true. A Recce is a specific rifle configuration, just like an SPR is a stainless-barreled 18" rifle with a rifle-length gas system.
I think the reason you find much more lateral variance on what constitutes a Recce is because there’s virtually none to be seen/heard of. That still doesn’t mean that any 16" rifle is a Recce, just like simply having an 18" barrel doesn’t make a rifle an SPR. It goes so much on beyond that. Just because the commercial/civilian side of end-users couldn’t find the official specs on what a Recce-rifle was doesn’t mean the specs don’t exist (as it’s common-knowledge now as to the upper configuration).
A Recce is a 16" Stainless-steel barreled carbine. The barrel is a stainless Lilja blank, chambered by Compass Lake, with a carbine-length gas system, with a 1/8" twist, fitted with a KAC Flash Hider/QD Suppressor mount. That is what Crane determined to be the Recce setup, just like the SPR has a specific setup.
I think many people here either don’t want to admit it themselves or are too afraid to hurt others’ feelings in admitting that any gross variation is simply not the same gun anymore (which is all fine and dandy, but simply admit it). There’s clones of the original weapon… and then there’s commercial variations, but that’s just it - they’re commercial variations, not Recces. Sure, they might have been inspired by the original Recce, just like a Chevy truck might have been inspired by a Ford design, but they’re different.
In regards to the actual concept you mentioned, the Recce concept was straightforward: a 16" build geared solely towards accuracy and being able to fire ANY 5.56mm round in inventory. If one is going to vary from the design specs but still try to follow a Recce concept, then they must adhere to the parameters: accuracy and round-compatibility. While your comments about Centurion barrels and other makes might be true, they directly defy the concept of the Recce. Chrome-lining any barrel degrades accuracy, so regardless of how “accurate” a chrome-lined barrel might be, it simply becomes an above-average m4gery and not a chrome-lined Recce.
You’re buying into marketing. The truth of the matter is that chrome-lined barrels directly conflict with the Recce’s mission statement. Period. Really, it can’t be denied. Therefore, it doesn’t matter how “great” a CL’d CM/V barrel is, it’s no more of a Recce barrel than a 20", chrome-lined AR-15 upper is an SPR, regardless of accuracy. You seem to keep thinking that a Recce is a 16", sub-MOA upper. That’s incorrect; a Recce is a 16" upper that’s had every single aspect of it geared towards accuracy. Chrome-lined barrels directly defeat that design parameter.
This also isn’t touching on the fact that chrome can and does flake/chip over time, allowing accuracy to “fall through” without any notice. This is another reason that chrome-lining is avoided whenever possible. The negatives (and potential negatives) of chrome-lining make it unsuitable for precision roles in ARs.
You’re aware that Centurion, Noveske, and BCM CM/V chrome-lined barrels are virtually the same, correct? They all use the same blanks and the same chrome-lining process, and all of them are known for being sub-MOA. That still doesn’t make them Recce barrels because the non-CL’d barrels from the exact same line would be more accurate. I don’t think you’re hearing your own argument: they’re purposely degrading the accuracy of the barrels in the name of corrosion resistance and longevity. What part of that is a Recce barrel? There’s isn’t one. They’re super-accurate M4geries.
I’ll say it again: if there was one, single design parameter for the Recce, it would be maximum-possible accuracy. Chrome-lining purposely degrades accuracy in the name of longevity and corrosion-resistance. That completely defeats the purpose of the Recce design and therefore isn’t one.
Anyways, my point isn’t that you can’t call something other than a Crane-built rifle a Recce; you can call the rifle anything you want. My point is that there’s more to it than a list of items or simply a length; there’s a goal that was to be accomplished. A Recce that’s anything other than a match-grade 16" rifle (and everything that entails being “match-grade”) isn’t a Recce, it’s a customized commercial AR-15 built to your own specifications.
The upper I pictured earlier was nose heavy due to the barrel profile of the Noveske Recon. While heavier than your average carbine, more weight on the rear end would help balance the rifle better and make it feel less nose heavy. While the rifle would be heavier, it should handle a little better due to the improved balance. I would just encourage you to try a SOPMOD or ACS before swapping out to the UBR. Just give it a shot and see what feels better to you.
