For me wanting what you want the Recon all the way. Not to say the Afghan is not a great upper I had one and liked it. Though I am saving for a Recon based upper right now. If that says anything.
[QUOTE=Skyyr;666831
You know… if you already have SBR’s, why not get a stamp for another? Noveske will sell SBR’s directly provided you fax them your approval paperwork. $200 is nothing to the overall price of the Noveske, plus they’re engraved at the factory. You could get an NFA 14.5" or shorter and wouldn’t be limited to the 16" OAL.[/QUOTE]
I do have (2) AR SBRs. One has the barrel with 10.5". I got it before Noveske made their 10.5" Light upper. Otherwise that’s what I would have got. Anyway, I have additional barrel length’s stated in section K (as advised by ATF-NFA Branch). This include’s a 14.5". I guess, I could eventually get a 14.5" upper from Noveske for it. But i’ve got the lower set up for a light fighter w/ a standard trigger. It does make sense to have a great trigger with a Noveske Upper and (as stated on pg.1) a heavier stock to balance things out.
On a realted note, my other SBR is a 12.5" w/ Denny’s Operator barrel that I had ADCO put together. They did great work. I really like Denny’s Operator barrel. I wonder why he stopped selling/making them. I had to wait like six months for mine, and it was worth every second of waiting.
The optic is a Leupold Ultra-light weight model: FX 2.5x20mm with the Wide Duplex Reticle. It is a really nice/ simple scope and works well out to several hundred yards for shooting steel plates and varmints, but definitely not a target scope.
I wanted a very light and simple scope that was sturdy and easy to shoot. The Wide Duplex works well and the eye relief is approx. 5", which is more than any other standard type scope I could find.
It is extremely fast up close and the eye relief allows for shooting with both eyes open. I have used it well past 300 yards on a variety of targets. And shot with the scope at dusk and in near dark conditions, the reticle is still easy for me to pick-up. For the money it is a solid little scope and weighs roughly 7-8 ounces, according to Leupold. I mounted it with an American Defense Recon mount.
Links:
http://swfa.com/Leupold-25x20-FX-II-Ultralight-Riflescope-P3263.aspx
A few other Leupold choices, similar
http://swfa.com/Leupold-VX-3-VX-3L-Riflescopes-C1695.aspx
The rifles with a Magpul CTR stock are both muzzle heavy. If you want a more balanced gun then a UBR or the Voltr E-Mod may be a better choice. My experience with both of those stocks is limited and I have not mounted-one on either of my two rifles pictured.
I decided on the CTR because I have several rifles and wanted to stick with the same stock, and other furniture (mostly Tango Down and Magpul for all of my guns/ bought spare parts). I also like the fact that the stock locks-up very solidly and is a simple design.
The best suggestion I have is to see if there is someone in your area/ local range who may help you try-out a few different stocks before deciding. Also, check-out member Jeff aka (search) USMC03’s primer on stock selection it may be useful for your decision.
Personally, I like my rifles muzzle-heavy. But that’s just me. I tend to shoot mostly (80%) off-hand and it works well in that regard.
Take your time looking around (you may also stumble across a great deal from a private party, I have seen a few complete rifles and uppers for sale lately).
It sounds like you already have a few rifles. In your poll, I voted for the 16" because if you are looking to punch paper, then the 16" barrel might be a better choice. But like some others have already stated, either would work well.
The SWS rails are heavy so if weight is a factor the non-pinned FH on the Recon would allow the versatility to switch-out to a lighter model like a Daniel Defense Lite Rail or one of the VTAC type aluminum/ or carbon fiber tube designs.
Finally, just keep in mind that these rifles are not light. Both of mine pictured are roughly 10.5 pounds with a loaded 30 round magazine (P-mag or HK steel mag). If you add a large/ heavy optic, it will probably get closer to 11 or 12 Lbs.
Have fun deciding:p
SkiDevil
P.S. Regarding optics, I am planning on purchasing a variable powered scope and an ACOG. The two that I am strongly leaning towards right now are the Night Force 2.5x10 24mm and the ACOG TA33 R. The ACOG for the 14.5" and the NF for the 16".
I too am having a hard time deciding. In the mean time, I am waiting for another ADM mount and will be putting a Leupold 3x9 on the 16" for the moment. I am waiting because supposedly a few new scopes will be coming-out in the near future 1x8, etc.
That’s how I have my Recon set up - 2.5-10x24 Mil/Mil in a NF Unimount. SPR-like accuracy while having a carbine’s handling. Only thing I would change/add is potentially a T-1 in an offset 1 o’clock mount.
You’re right, though. They’re heavy. Mine came in just around 11lbs with optics.
Damn it! Everybody and their mother keeps raving about that NF 2.5-10 model:mad:. I can’t afford it:(. I suppose I’ll have to save for it one day. So, I guess I might as well ask. What freakin reticle do you have on it?
I’ve got the Mil-Dot reticle with Mil-Rad ZeroStop turrets. Also was one of lucky ones to get a model with NVD illumination settings.
You can still find them, no doubt, but the time to buy them was back during December - February, when they were widely announced as discontinued and retailers were selling them at nearly 30% off. I got mine with every available option for $1,115 shipped (retail was over $1,500). Again, you can still find them, but no where near as cheap as they were now that the availability for them has dried up.
Is riflegear.com a good place to buy a complete Noveske upper from? I’ve never ordered from them. I ask because their prices are a little better (and they have other accessories I need that Noveske doesn’t). This is a lot of $ for me. No, I don’t plan on babying the damn thing. But I don’t want to spend that much $ to get an upper that wasn’t stored properly and has scratches galore, rust etc. It has happened to me before (with some other online retailers). Thanks for the help.
You wouldn’t be losing much having a place build an upper for you - Rainier would probably end up in the lead for price.
I’d base the decision on what upper you’re going to buy next - if this will be your go-to long range rig, or only Noveske upper in the forseeable fiscal future, then the 16.1" is abosolutely the better choice.
If you’re going to be already saving towards an 18" or 20" rifle after this, then there’s no reason not to go with a 14.5"
The Leupold MR/T’s are a relatively affordable and similar optic - with the illuminated TMR reticle they aren’t half bad. On an infinite budget there’s a lot about it I’d change, but for the money they’re extremely competitive optics. My 2.5-8x is a good optic at a very good price, and while certain not as good as the NF 2.5-10x34mm, it’s half the price.
I really don’t think you’d be disappointed in the effective long range performance of the Afghan 14.5" with a Trijicon TR24G on top of it, or even the 1.5-6x MR/T M2 from Leupold, would be very usable up close, and effectively reach out past 400m.
If this overlaps with your SBR guns for application, then go 14.5".
If your SBRs are going to remain your go-to items, and this needs to have more reach, then a 16" is the right choice.
My personal suggestion in that case would be:
UBR Stock, MIAD/MOE Grip, GSSA Trigger
16.1" SS Barrel, DD 10.0 Lite or VTAC 11.0 Extreme, SEI Vortex
Leupold 2.5-8x34mm, Vortex Viper PST 2.5-10x44mm, or pinching pennies for the NF.
16" Recon with the TR24 FTW
Nice set up, Jeep. What finish do you have on the barrel?
First, I voted 16" as I too do not like permanently attached flash hiders, comps… There is always something to change on a gun and the permanently attached flash hider makes it a pain.
Skyyr, I do not understand your comment that I quoted below. Just because someone is an LEO does not exempt them from the Federal laws. An agency could paper a tax exempt SBR but an individual officer cannot. Even the agency needs to file the paperwork. An individual officer needs to go through the same procedure as any other citizen. Also, just because someone is not an LEO does not mean they will not be maneuvering the firearm inside a vehicle, confined space… I am certain he will be maneuvering it somewhere, so your elsewhere comment is not accurate.
Yes, what you said is true. However, I was stating it on a “as needed” basis. In other words, he doesn’t “require” one, as if a 14.5" was indeed required, it would almost definitely be department sanctioned and therefore an exempted SBR. Also, considering he already has SBR’s, it would follow he doesn’t intend on using this specific rifle to the purposes mentioned.
I was using deduction and experience with the OPs other threads to sum up the uses of the barrel lengths in question, not make making a blanket statement that applied to all LEOs.
I would go 16’', velocity adds up, it’s a few more yards of fragmentation, plus I’d go with a mid length gas system, more reliable, softer recoiling, easier on components.
That’s what made up my mind. I’d go 16’’ more so for the appeal of the Mid Length Gas System over the barrel so much… though the little bit more of velocity is always nice, IMHO.
I am building my BCM Mid-Length around close to intermediate range carbine usage, with 200m as my approximate max range, with somewhere between 50-150m being anticipated as the predominant ranges I’ll be shooting at.
I expect it to perform well in those ranges, realistically with a higher powered optic, I imagine I could get out to 300-400m probably without issue, but, I’m going with the concept I first envisioned.
For 2’’ that’s a lot of difference because of the gas lengths, I’d go for a mid length, especially if your decisions are a 14.5’’ with an inch and a half long flash hider or a 16 with about .75’’ or longer flash suppressor extending from the muzzle beyond the barrel.
What kind of usage do you expect out of this gun? What’re you trying to accomplish with this rifle, what bases are you trying to cover, etc.
ETA: After hitting submit, a different idea hit me.
I don’t see a whole lot of appeal for the M4 14.5’', I’m sure it has it’s place… but realistically… it was the shortest they could make a barrel and mount a bayonet to it, and it’s been re-profiled with mounting a Grenade Launcher in mind.
Two things I will never use, and can never see myself using.
I’d go with the 16’’ Mid Length AR. I don’t feel the shorter barrel is short enough or significantly different enough to justify the shorter length/hassles associated with having a permanently attached longer flash hider design, lost velocity and I don’t think the gas length is best. It’s a fair trade if you’re going down to a 12.5’’ or 11.5’’ or 10.5’’ to switch to a carbine length gas tube… but I just don’t see it when for a inch and change to lose that added reliability and flexibility.
IMHO. Not saying M4 Carbines aren’t reliable, just saying simply… I don’t see the point, I’d go with the functionally superior one (in multiple areas outlined above) over the one that might look better.
YMMV.
Rifle Gear is a well run and reputable company. I have purchased from them in the past and have not had any problems.
And all of the employees whom I have spoken with were fairly knowledgeable when it comes to AR type rifles/ parts.
I have looked at a few of the larger objective/ higher power Night Force scope models and was impressed. The seem very well built and appear to be a high quality product. The dealer just didn’t have the lower powered scope models in stock.
How is the field of view with the scope at 10X (100 yards)?
Does the 24mm model perform well even with the smaller objective lense say compared to the 32mm model (if you know)?
What do you think of the scope and factory mount (is it quick release)? Any deficiencies (anything you would change)?
Thanks
P.S. With the weight of this type of scope/ mount, I don’t plan on adding anything else myself (no RDS).
There are still some internet dealers with discontinued models. I found a couple googling the scope model/ name last week. The price seems to be around $150-200 less than the 1-4X model, depending on the reticle/ zero stop option.
The field of view is slightly narrow at 10x (the websites states it as 11ft/3.6yds), but considering that the only scenarios that actually require 10x are typically slow-fired, precision shots, you don’t notice it much due to the nature of that type the shooting. At low power (2.5x), it has a slightly larger field of view than a 4x ACOG (44ft/14.6yds). The website reports the 32mm model having the same FOV, so I’d assume they’re the same (I haven’t handled a 32mm personally).
The big thing going for the x24 model is it’s size. Compared to the 32mm model, it’s 2.1" shorter and 2oz. lighter. The 32mm model, while better “on paper,” simply adds too much length and weight to a Recce rifle (on an SPR, they’re great - Trident82 has some good photos). There was a thread that covered the length of the two models and, on a Recce rifle, the 12" 32mm model was huge. Technically, the 32mm model has a 3.2mm exit pupil diameter, whereas the 24mm model has a 2.4mm exit pupil diameter. This will allow you slightly more light through the scope on cloudy/low-lit days or at dusk. If your gun can handle the extra size of the 32mm, then go for that model. Otherwise, the 32mm objective does nothing in terms of practical usage and a 24mm would serve you well. If you’ll be shooting at dusk frequently, then it’d be best to go with a different scope altogether. The 24mm model is also smaller than most 1-4x optics. All of this power packed into a 1-4x-sized optic is simply amazing.
At low power, it’s very fast on target for a precision scope, while leaving you a potential 10x of magnification for long-range shots. I typically run mine between 2.5x and 6x and only dial it up to 10x when popping soda can-sized targets at 300-400yds.
If I had any complaints, it would be the tighter cheek-weld required above 7x due to the 24mm objective lense. For taking out targets with precision slow-fire at range, it works great, but if you have to shoot on the move or engage targets located laterally from each other, then the moving tends to upset your cheek-weld and makes getting a good sight picture somewhat of a pain.
If you need a Recce optic that allows you to use the gun for it’s intended purpose (engaging targets from 0-400yd with precision), then it’s the perfect optic. It’s only lacking in the 0-50yd area, but that’s a shortcoming of all magnified optics. If you need a scope that you’ll be running at 10x regularly, I’d pass and go with a different scope altogether, something with a larger objective lense.
The scope itself doesn’t come with a mount, but NF does sell their Unimount. I went with that model for a number of reasons, the main one being the fact that Nightforce doesn’t endorse the usage of quick-release mounts. In a nutshell, they’re not as accurate and mounts like the Unimount have a more consistent return-to-zero. Since this is a precision AR build and since there’s potential that I’ll be using the scope on a bolt gun later down the road, I opted to try it out.
It’s a cross-bolt model and it requires torquing down the nuts to 68in/lbs. I purchased a Seekonk torque wrench set (a 15 in/lb wrench for the ring bolts and a 65 in/lb for the mount bolts) from Liberty Optics. It was $139 for the set, but I’ve already found other uses for them (the AICS bolt-action stock I’m looking to buy requires a 65 in/lb wrench and most scope rings require torquing to 15 in/lb), so it was money well spent.
As far as ease of use, yes it takes more time to remove the mount than flipping a lever, but not much. I just carry the 65in/lb wrench with me in my range bag (it’s small enough to fit in a jean pocket). It can be removed and re-attached using the wrench in about 10 seconds. It does offer a few benefits, namely the design of the Unimount doesn’t mar the rifle’s rails (some don’t care - I do) and I don’t have to worry about inadvertently hitting a lever. Since it’s a precision build, I rarely remove it in the first place.
The mount also comes with 20 MOA of cant built in, which is useful for SPR builds where you might be taking shots out to 800m. It’s definitely a precision-optic mount and not for someone who swaps out optics multiple times during a range trip.
Hope that answers your questions - sorry for the long reply.
That’s a BCM Middy upper, not a Noveske.
Not exactly in the spirit of the thread, but a great rifle none the less.
Thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed review of your Night Force scope.
Yes, it did answer my questions and I am certain that some other members will find the information useful as well.
There seems to be a lot of interest by many in this type of scope, particularly the NF model (2.5x10x 24mm).
Disagree. With a 1-4, the superior clarity and light transmission of a higher dollar scope won’t be especially apparent, and 2.5-10 is more glass than he needs for his stated purposes. Also, it’s been my experience that the fiber optic reticle really shines for close in work when you have the scope at minimal magnification. Plus, no batteries to change, let alone a battery life measured in tens of hours.
I own a 14.5 and love it, might not get that extra 75 fps but makes little difference to me when shooting at 100-300 yards. At that you would have more than enough imo. Having to pin your flash hider is a bummer but just get a god one to start off with and no problem later hopefully. Im issued a 16" at work but purchased a 14.5" for my side work and pleasure. I can not tell any significant drop in accuracy. As someone else mentioned “holdover” Im not sure what a hold has to do with it. Maybe a holdover is something other than a hold in my lingo. But going through school a “hold” is using a reference like the mil-dot to engage by factoring in wind or quick leads or distance.
Accuracy is consistency and there is no reason in my mind why a 14.5 would be less consistent than a 16"?
For your use I do not see a huge advantage to either one honestly, just minor options.
But lets all be real if you cant engage targets from 100-300 yards consistently with a 14.5 maybe you need to post less here on M4C and practice the basics of marksmanship. trigger control, sight picture and sight alignment might be good starting points, lol. 