back to pics - my ‘recce’.
I wasn’t aware of that. Did Wes work at Crane?
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.
I was not referring to the Centurion CL CHF barrel. I was referring to this one, made from the same blanks as the real Mk12 barrels. The biggest difference is that his 16" recce barrels use a midlength gas system.
You’re aware that Centurion, Noveske, and BCM CM/V chrome-lined barrels are virtually the same, correct?
Yes, I am aware.
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.
Maybe so, but they are still capable of similar accuracy as many SS barrels available to us today and are a good option for someone who wants to build a recce inspired rifle with less weight and greater durability without giving up much, if anything in accuracy. It may not bow at the altar of the Recce, but the performance can be very similar to a SS barreled upper.
i’m so pissed i forgot to do the vltor sight on my last build. i thoroughly intended to. :mad:
As usual brother…we are 99% in total agreement and I must say the above bolt text straight up PEGGED IT imho.
Extreme match grade precision in an AR15 w. a 16" barrel is quite an intimating goal to shoot for and if achieved is quite the reflection on that particular AR’s builder’s prowess. I honestly have only seen a handful of true match grade 16" recce guns(seeing 10rd. sub moa groups and several diff. loads achieving that sub moa). Those two criteria that skyyr listed above are non debatable criteria in terms of application not specs…they absolutely have to be tack drivers that are not MOA shooters but clearcut sub moa shooters. Secondly, they have to shoot a bunch of diff. loads very accurate…unlike the current MK 12’s that by in large never fire anything but mk262.
Again, no big deal if you are not at all recce spec’d as obviously there is a hundred other awesome and very useful diff AR configs. for diff. applications…but these days the amt. of Artistic Licensing going on imho is getting ridiculous and I believe I will start calling my recce a SPR Lite or something:D
The Seal Recon rifle was never type classified or assigned an official TDP as far as I am aware. All that was given was a concept statement of:
“Able to shoot any 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge in inventory (at the time this included the first iterations of the 77-grain (5 g) Mk 262 Mod 0 cartridge), and that the weapon have a barrel 16 inches (406 mm) in length.”
Now, if you are trying to adhere to the specs of the rifle as built by Crane, yes there are some non-variable aspects such as the barrel, gas system, suppressor mount/FH, and upper receiver, and if one wants to clone a “Recce” rifle, he would have to use the same items. However, given the short list of “standard” items and the wide variance in every other component, with the lack of a TDP, the concept of the weapon is it’s definition. There are items (such as a precision SS barrel) that preclude other choices due to their ability to conform to concept better than any other item.
With an M4 or an M4A1, I can pick up a TDP, read the list, and determine if the weapon in front of me meets those specs to be accepted as a military type-classified weapon or not. I can do that with any weapon in the US inventory, from the Mk17 to the MEUSOC .45. Without that ability, one has only a few examples as built (with varying components) and a concept of performance.
As long as it is 16" and turns in distinctly improved precision capability, it meets the intent. If I have an AR with a 16" CL barrel that meets the precision requirement, with an optic that lets me reach out to 600 meters in field conditions, it would be hard to argue that it isn’t a “Recon” or “Recce” rifle. Now, if that same combination was a 3 MOA performer it certainly would not meet the intent, nor would it if it exactly matched a weapon as built by Crane.
That’s why I say that it is more of a concept than an actual specific item.
F2S, thank you for so clearly stating what I have failed to communicate.
Pic in this thread, mid length 16" but we only made the barrels so I can’t answer any questions about other parts
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=10551
There were also some real Recce barrels (16.5" not 16", carbine gas) made with a dimple opposite the gas port so at least some were designed for use with a LP gas block.
As for history this is my version, pieced together from several sources and a few observations.
The Recce was built because of a need for a light or M4 type sniper rifle. Built in small numbers and never type classified as far as I know.
SOCOM later ID’d the same need and rolled it into the SPR program. (my guess is that there was money still in the SPR program but the 7.62x39 AR was a bust)
Where it gets interesting is when the AMU wanted to build them and use fluted heavy service competition barrels. The users of the Recce were happy with it and didn’t want the extra weight. The compromise is what became the MK12.(I don’t have a direct source for all of this but: #1 the early MK12’s had set screw adjustable front BUIS, and #2 look at the AMU built SDM-R.)
Another complicating factor is that most people can’t acheive that level of accuracy with a lower-powered optic, though the link that ToddK posted a few posts below shows that it can be done, and even out to 600m. This is relevant to my interests, since I will be using a 1-4X on mine.
To avoid offending anyone, I shall refer to my new rifle as a Recon, which is permissible because it will have a Noveske “Recon” barrel. It’s either that, or a <Recce.
Recce glass is a great topic for discussion and while I have come to an concrete spec in that dept., I feel this is the one area that one has more liberty to pick and chose based on personal preferences.
I love idea of 1-4x’s and love the baby nxs as well as my only current 1-4x type which is a tr-21(1.25x)…I just cannot get very much effective use out of it and little to none in terms of 100m plus precision accuracy. I would say personally 10x is my min. for precision applications but if I had leupy’s instead of my NF’s I would prob. lower that min. power to 8x or 9x.
I had always distinguished these guns into two variants if you want to call it…1.) Recce Rifle which is the one built purely for high precision…2.) Recon Rifle which opens the door to all types of things. These two sub categories could keep things a helluva lot easier to discuss and it allows some to be like the typical MK 12 spec nazi’s and build the Recce’s to as high of spec as possible and then less rigid builders who build solely on their personal preferences yet use the recce rifle as a broad template.
When did the use of the term Recce become so damn strict? Call it whatever you want Wes. It’s your $$ and it will be a very nice rifle for sure. Be sure to post up some range results and your impressions of the complete package when you get it done.
Call it whatever you want, you know the intent/mission of the Recce and your rifle is being built to fit that same kind of role. I suspect there were very few real Recce’s built and highly doubt the early ones were built with 12" rails, long handguards were not “in” when the Recce was first built. I also would not be supprised to see a newer one with a 12" rail, I’ve heard rumors that some shot out MK12’s were rebarreled with Recce barrels.
Let the MK12 guys argue about who has the closest clone.
However, that Centurion barrel you linked to weighs about the same as a Noveske Recon barrel (which is SS). Centurion has their barrel listed as 33.2 oz and Noveske has their Recon WITH gas block listed at 35 oz.
Correct, that is the Centurion SS Recce barrel. The Recce and Noveske Recon are both SS, what’s your point?
My bad, I misread and thought you meant that was lighter.
That looks like an 18" barrel.
The gods may be angry with you for calling it a Recce instead of an SPR…
Wes, have you decided on a configuration? Stock, barrel, optic, etc.?
I have the barrel- a Noveske Recon 16" SS. The optic will prolly be a Nightforce 1-4X, but I have a NF 2.5-10X32 on hand also, though it was intended for another rifle; I will shoot the completed build with both optics to see which works best for my needs.
The stock choise is more problematic…I was all set on the UBR, but I IM’d a member here who is an “end user” and this is what he had to say:
(me) If a heavier telestock like the UBR would help balance the rifle, would you accept the added weight? Which factor is most important to you- overalll weight, or balance?
(him) Weight is more important to me. As for balance- A 16" balances better for a collapisble stock, which most of us run. I can’t think of any reason to purposly make anything heavier.
As you have mentioned, the UBR is rather heavy. A SOPMOD might be a good compromise between weight & balance. I really like the sopmod over the CTR when using optics also.
Is there a Knowledge thread that lists the weights of the various stocks?