I'll allow it

A wise man once said, "When a steak is cooked properly, A1 sauce should never touch it."

That Metallica drawing is cool, did you do that?

Extra "Mk12" engraving is a no go. Don't ruin perfectly clone lowers pls.

Negative. eBay back in 2001 when I was 13 or so. I think it was $40 or so?

Cool drawing none the less.

Thanks. I have always intended to have it matted but never got around to it. I want to get a couple of dogfighting ink posters and have them framed so maybe then I will finally do it.

Trying to be artsy

" />

So that was never on any mk12? I've got a pic of it and I thought it was on a rifle built by Vince jiga so I guess I just assumed there were some done that way. Hmmm. Go figure. Learn something new every day here. That's why I love this thread. So I'm good with just two hydromatic A1's and 2 M16A1's. I've got the A1 stocks and grips. Getting down to the end on these and I'm starting to stress a bit on details. I finally just said fuck it on my SAM-R and SDM-R builds and sent all the parts to CLE and said build it. They will get it right and it's off my mind. May do the same with these and just send all of it to HCS.

Talon brand. The pack had about 5 different swivel studs, a few washers/bushings, and a pair of sling mounts.



Any 10-32 sling swivel should work, but the washer in the kit fits the hole on the PRI rail section perfectly.



 

The 308 version I built isn't a real mk12, they don't make'em in that flavor or anything,  was just a cool project to do because of that Unicorn Seaman of a rail I obtained. Mk11 mod0 is different in a lot of ways.
-20" barrel
-cutout in the front of the rail for front sight mounted GB
-no Ops break and collar
-no threaded muzzle
-railed GB
-no 99051
I essentially built an exact clone of a mod1, just in 308.

Oh, I totally understand the difference.  I was just saying that I dont want a Mk12 because I had a 556 SPR once and the entire time I wish I had just built a 308.  Ergo, the 308 "Mk12" is the only one that interests me.

got my colt bcg in yesterday.

test fired 10 rounds today at best of the west in liberty hill, tx.  

all successful.  i am a proud daddy.

no one told me how smooth the mod 1 shoots.  it was like shooting a .22

is it just the combo of 18 inch bbl, with rifle gas and rifle buffer?

ETA-no optics yet, but I hit clay pigeons at 50 yrds just eyeballing it.  lmao

More or less, yes. Throw in an adj. gas block (not on your MK12 of course) on a similar set up with a good brake and it's nuts. Scary smooth.

It was actually the first piece of the build I got. I got it out of the EE probably almost a year ago. An even more bizarre story to me is the DD M4 12" rail I got for the SDM-R. I found it on fleebay the day I decided to do the SDM-R and I have not seen one for sale since. I havnt seen a KAC fsgb for sale in over a year either though.

Oh, I totally understand the difference.  I was just saying that I dont want a Mk12 because I had a 556 SPR once and the entire time I wish I had just built a 308.  Ergo, the 308 "Mk12" is the only one that interests me.

Ohhh, yea I feel ya on that. I can definitely reach out further more consistently, and still shoot a gun that I think is the coolest looking gun the Military ever was issued. I am a very big fan of the mod1. I have 4 different variants of that rifle

FYI, for all the Mk12 folks (and because this is the coolest thread on ARFCOM), I just posted my Wilcox/NF mount P/N 35101P01 and Docter II 3.5MOA on the EE (optics section) as a combo.

Is this kosher?

I'm a little unclear about the non PEQ top rail. I'm damn near done with my MK12 soon I'll stop asking questions.

I swear, this project will be the death of me.






I'm about to pull the trigger on a NF 2.5-10x32.  I have a Mk12 Mod 1 with correct rear KAC sights.









What mount do I want?  I figured a NF unimount, but I dont know what height.  Will all of them clear the rear sight?  With an A1 stock, which height do yall prefer?









I will be shooting at 400-1000 yards.  I am an optics newb.  I just don't do them.  









Tell me what to do.  




 

The 1.375" high rings or unimount is what I would use. This is close to the same height as the A.R.M.S. #22H.

I know you are sending this to Braceman and he will get it right, but I wanted to make sure you aren't requesting "Hydromatic" engraving!  The receivers were stamped HYDRA-MATIC.  

Last time I talked to braceman, one of his CNCs were down. Not sure if it's the CNC he uses for engraving

It's whatever he does. He seemed to know exactly what I needed so I'm just mailing the lowers as soon as they show up and let him work his magic. I'm in no hurry either so if he's getting a cnc fixed no biggy.

Well, as far even as the PRI Repro stuff goes, no. The early guns had either a PEQ-2 top forward section, or the double spaced rails as seen here. PEQ in foreground, double spaced in background:

Gotcha! Thanks. I didn't recall seeing the one in the background before. That's the one if like ideally. I'm guessing that those are much more difficult to find.

Any of the original, Kosher, ARMS rails are hard as ass to find. The batch that got bought up like alst year or so from SWFA or ARMS or somewhere were all the full 1913 top rails. I don't think any were PEQ-2 or the SPR-MOD.

I don't think PRI does the double spaced SPR-MOD type, so you'd be best off getting a PEQ model if you're trying to piece together an early type upper.

Everything is on the first page. I can't even tell you how many times I've gone back to that. I don't believe the NF 2.5-10x32 was used on the mod 1. I'm not sure if it's an " in the wild" thing. The rings are ARMS #22 high rings. Without leverstops. The nightforce 2.5-10x24 was used with optional NF rings.
  Others know this WAY better than I do. Hopefully they can chime in as to the validity of the x32 NF.

 
I don't have the testicular fortitude to track down a x24




Ideally, I'd have a QD unimount, but I'm ok with the NF unimount.  




I can't get things perfect, but I can get it close.




I'm not an optics guy.  I don't do this stuff.  I don't know what mounts are going to clear the KAC BUIS, and be comfy.  I certainly don't want it too high, but low won't work.  So I have an endorsement for the NF 1.375 and I'm ok going with that.




At that price point, I'm pretty much open to anything.  


 

Will NF 1.125 Highs clear the BUIS?  I know the x-high 1.375 will.

No, 1.125 rings will not clear the full-size KAC buis...

1.125" rings...

Mk12 Mod 1 by M T, on Flickr

Alan Brown from HCS (who worked at Crane during the Mk 12 program) claimed in a video interview with Larry Vickers that the x32 was used. It does have an NSN.

That said, just because it was under contract doesn't mean it *actually* got used on any Mk 12s. Alan is also a NF dealer who has a vested interest in being able to sell what's currently available on the market. You can almost tell in his voice when he's talking about it that he's annoyed by all the clone nerds asking him the same questions all the time about the x24.

The vast majority of Mod 1s that were ordered were fielded to the USMC and those were seemingly all fielded with the Leupold TS-30 variants. The only NF scopes we typically see on Mod 1s are pics from SEALs using them and 99% of the time it's the x24. There's a few other random optics that show up like the one that Utah uses. But so far, I don't think we've ever seen picture evidence that a x32 was ever used on a Mk 12 in theater. Does that mean it didn't happen? Of course not. But many clone purists typically like cloning what we actually have pictures of.

It's really up to personal preference. We know the x32 has/had an NSN. We have the word of Alan that they were used. Nobody is going to give you shit over it. It certainly looks far more correct than using something like a Vortex. But there are others that would never run one on a Mod 1 because their nerdiness outweighs their practicality and would rather run something like the TS-30 or the x24. I'd be in that camp.

 
That's the kind of info I need.  Thank you so much.


The only other option aside from 1.375 rings is intermediates @ 1.265, and those happen to be in stock at the shop that is shipping my scope.


I just don't know if they'll clear the KAC.

I do believe I saw a x32 on top of one or two of the supposed legit Recce rifles we've seen pics of, and the've definitely been seen on top of Mk17 SCARs. So it's not one of those issues where a company pulls an NSN but never actually had a contract/purchase/use.

I guess the x32 falls into a gray area IMO, just below the "as issued or seen in wild" kosherness, for clone purposes at least. It's definitely been photographed on other types of rifles the Mk12 would be in the armory with, and we have verbals from an industry guy. But it's short of photos or any .mil documentation that could tie it together.

I kind of remember there being some discussion of the x32 NF scopes being used by the Rangers on their Mk12s, and there was a pic of the showing "ARMY SPEC" engraved on the underside of the scope.  I have no proof of this, though, just a vague memory.

They should clear the 1.265" ... It will be tight, but it should work

Combat Diver should be able to chime in on the x32 discussion...

I pulled the trigger on NF 1.375 4-screw rings.




My blood pressure can't take any more of this.


 


I appreciate your help, guys.  Despite my flip flopping and rapid-fire questions, you steered me back to where I should be... with a functional and "close enough" setup.


I really didn't want ARMS rings, but I wanted to stay close to what's seen in the wild.  Yes, not having an x24 will bug me, but that is quite the hunt to track one down.

All that being said my 2.5-10x32 is one of my favorite. I just don't have the eye sight to use the 24. I've got 3 mark 4 2.5-8 scopes so I'll use those for now. I'd like to eventually pick up a vari-x 3 for the early mod 0. A 3-9x36 would be the bomb but not sure that's even possible.

Mine is going to be a kind later one BUT with the Leupold Mark 4 LR/T 3.5-10x40mm M3 MIL-Dot Reticle scope. I found one for a bargain, so I'm using it.  Eventually I'd like to find early truly correct parts, but I'm currently trying to just get the rifle done.

 

Clone Nerds... lol I like It.  I looked long and hard at the NXS 2.5-10x32, and if I wasn't cloning, I would have bought it for sure over the TS-30.  But the TS-30 is just "right" on the top of a MK12,, at least in my eyes.


Heck I'm struggling enough with simply moving from 22H's to a LT104 mount - I know the LT104 is "ITW" approved, but just doesn't seem right for some reason.  But the eye relief on the TS-30 is giving me fits :(, so funtion over from will probably win out.  Just waiting until I swap out my A2 stock to the D-Type to be sure.


BTW anyone looking for a NXS x32, 1shotgear has some smoking deals ona few right now...never bought fromt them, but saw it in the optics deal thread: https://1shotgear.com/products/brand/nightforce-optics/on_sale/1

 
That's who I just bought from.  The price is impossible to beat... I see used ones going for more.  The guys at the shop are cool too, and will put up with a 15 minute conversation about rings.  

Add the Mk14 Mod 1 to the list of other rifles the x32 was used on.  It was originally fielded with the 3.5-15, then the x24, and some later ones came with the x32.  They're out there...more so than pictures illustrate.

I just picked up a mildot zerostop x32 on eBay for $925.

Speaking of which...

I believe there's a fucking 3.5-15x50 F1, Mil reticle in the EE.

Always said I'd never have a dedicated .22, never say never I guess. Dedicated .22 barrels are pretty legit. Just need my ring reducers, and finish the 80% it will sit in.

One could make an argument for this being an NF 2.5-10x32.  Compare the relative lengths, and imagine moving the rings.  Also Army.  

This argument about "levels of kosherness" is somewhat absurd.  

I know everyone wants hard and fast rules and categories that they can draw lines around and place people inside or outside of.

From a historian's standpoint, however, understand that photographic documentation represents only a tiny fraction of the total population.  Moreover, photographs can be misleading, and may not necessarily represent the configuration of a weapon as used in combat, particularly when photographed in an administrative setting versus a combat setting.

There are plenty of things I've seen in my travels, but never gotten photographs of that would probably be rejected according to the "rules" of some of these clone threads.  

Also, one photograph (or set of photographs) exist of a particular weapon, "seen in the wild" is not necessarily representative.  A photograph doesn't automatically make something "kosher" because it was on one weapon at one time.  Let's be realistic here, it could not/would not take long for this to be stretched far beyond the point of absurdity.  A lot of these photographs we pour over are several times removed from their original context.  

I know many of you all are most interested in the technical aspects and aesthetic appeal of the weapons themselves, but "professionals study logistics."  

The "in the same armory" argument is just as absurd... if you want to understand the history of the weapon, you need to try to understand not only the technical aspects of the weapon, but also the process by which they and the units that use them are equipped, the way funding and procurement works.  You need to understand the historical context of the era you're discussing, 2000-2016 is a pretty long time, and there's been a lot of changes that have happened, not to mention a lot of fuck-ups, and a lot of just plain weird shit.  

You need to understand a little bit about the organizational and institutional culture of the end-user community, talking MK 12 MOD 1s, there's a reason conventional Marine Corps units have very little variation compared to, say, NSW MK 12 MOD 1s.  This should surprise no one, and many will very easily understand why.  This will be opaque to others.  Along with the organizational and institutional culture, you need to have at least a passing understanding of tactics and employment as well.  

Understanding these kinds of things can allow one to make reasonable suppositions and assumptions about configurations.  Minus direct documentation, can you ever "prove" that it's true?  No.  Will your suppositions be 100% accurate 100% of the time?  Absolutely not.  Will there always be configurations that you never even dreamed about or considered that will end up being documented?  Indubitably.  But, you will be able to make good, educated guesses that can be supported by secondary evidence, with a much higher degree of reliability than simply "it was in the same armory."  Moreover, you can make judgment calls about what is or is not likely to have happened, even without direct primary source documentation.  

This is historical research, and this is how historical research works.  Certainly there are arguments amongst academic and professional historians and researchers about conclusions that they've drawn as well.  Unfortunately what complicates the matter in this kind of thread versus researching, say the Revolutionary War is the fact that this is the public internet, anyone can see what's posted here.  Meanwhile, not only are most of the units and many of the personnel and weapons in question currently in service and engaged, but the organizations that use them are by nature more secretive than most.  

This means that most public discussion is boiled down to the technical level of what is physically observable in photographs, and a certain enthusiasm for "lived history" in the form of people building "clones" to experience the weapons personally and directly for a variety of reasons.  Unfortunately, this has led to an excessive enthusiasm for categorizing, segregating, and creating hierarchies of "kosherness" and "correctness," as well as the exclusion/exclusivity, in-fighting, and general squabbling and purse swinging that tends to go along with it.  

I for one would like to see this last part end.  Once you start making rules, you can never stop, you always have to keep on making more.  Most people can tell when someone's build has gone beyond the point of relevance to the topic, and it has been determined that relevance is not only adjudicated by "the spirit of," but a reasonable attempt at replicating technical features as well.  Beyond that, people can be applauded for taking the extra effort to get every single tiny component right, but there is no reason to "clone shame" anyone because they're a couple parts off.  Tone is difficult to convey on the internet, but there's a difference between pointing out discrepancies and making recommendations for improvement and "clone shaming."  You don't need express rules about which is which.  Let's at least *try* to be adults.    

~Augee

There is a #38 mod1 in EE which is full rail w/ GEN3 cutout. If you have to find yourself a #38 but don't mind being a weirdo, go buy it
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_7_22/1563623_A_R_M_S__38_SPR_Mod_1.html

The TS-30 is different from the TS-30-A2 correct? The TS-30 is what I would love to have. (3-9x36). The TS-30-A2 is what I have though. Is the TS-30 available anywhere? I've never seen one used or otherwise. Is it a certain vari-x 3 or mark 4? As stated I have the 2.5-8x36 but I REALLY want the 3-9x36(TS-30).


EDIT- it's a mark 4 LR/T with M1 knobs. That's what I found on the Internet anyway. Illuminated mildot. I saw some old for sale ads for them but not since 2012-13. Maybe it is possible to find one. I always thought M1 knobs were a no go but maybe good on that scope?

My goal with "categorizing" stuff was mainly as a way to help sort out what is GTG for the thread, and what is not, as well as giving folks who are here to work towards the highest quality "clone". If we go wild west in this thread, we're probably going to get a LOT of the "inspired" stuff that doesn't even look close to any of the Mk12 variations and spend more time policing the thread than talking Mk12 shit. OTOH, I agree that we're not looking to be clone shaming because someone has a Mk4 instead of a Vari-X III LR, or a Cerro forge instead of a Colt stamped AF upper. I'm not looking to establish a "you must be this clone to post/enter" bar.

I've been fine with the ones that closely followed the spirit of the Mk12, but had fun variations, different glass sometimes, mini Mk-12s, .308 Mk12s, Wormy's builds, etc. And I get that builds start off way wrong like mine did for YEARS. This should absolutely be a progress/build thread. But at the same time, not where folks openly keep their stuff nowhere near Mk12 because, as you say, they shoot their rifle a lot. To me cloning an obsolete rifle, or even trying to stay mostly close and then going buck wild with glass and furniture and cans defeats the purpose of the entire exercise.

I will say that when you move off the specs of a Mk12 as issued, in the wild, off what you've seen, or somewhere very close to that, it defeats the entire purpose of this thread. It's like building a rare '67 Shelby Mustang up and putting an LS7 in it. Yeah, it'd probably go like stink, and it's your car. But when you roll up to Pebble Beach, don't expect anyone to high five you and give you a trophy.

Roman reenacting very much is in the same boat. A lot of what they have to set for standards are only based on what little we know, because so little survives. Everything equipment wise is based off rusty finds at the bottom of the Rhine, or piles of iron plate found in bogs or graves in England. No schematics, no armory logs, and nothing but romanticized columns in Rome or writings to give any idea of how it goes together. I mean, we really don't know what color tunics they wore, how the shields were painted, formations and drill. It's a similar problem with trying to clone and learn about stuff used by people who work in a secretive mission, and often keep to themselves or their comrades. My motivation with all this is that unlike the Romans, we will have documented, categorized, filmed stuff for future enthusiasts like ourselves.

And please Augee, I'd rather hear about the stuff you've seen but we might not believe, because the more people that chime in even without pics, the more credible it becomes. Shit, we've seen CAA stocks and a goddamn Tactical Duostock on an early rifle, how crazy could it be? I want to better understand the procurement processes, because that tells a huge portion of the story on these rifles. I mean, we've said before they're the best thing 2001-2004 had to offer.

I finally got around to shooting my MK12 this week with my Dad! This public range is pretty much a trashcan from everyone not cleaning up after themselves.

Also, vertical video on my Dad's part but this was after we got it dialed in at 100 yards on steel. I'll be going for groups next time and pushing it out further. All in all, this is probably my favorite new rifle now!

My Dad and I also helped me build my M16A4 clone and we put some rounds through it. He has never been apart of an AR build and is now wanting to build his own M4 SOPMOD. The clone wars are contagious!




MK12 Mod 0 on Steel (YouTube)

What stock is on your mod 0?