User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/13/2003 3:37:46 AM EDT
[#1]
Devl, the barrel is a Bushmaster fluted 1:9 16" chrome-lined HBAR. I really like the weight savings. In the rifle's previous configuration, this barrel was sub-0.7MOA, from a bipod, while hot, using handloads.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2003 5:06:19 PM EDT
[#2]
How did you pick the ACOG for this rifle? Would that be your first choice for it, or would you rather have a different ACOG? And why?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2003 8:37:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Well, I always wanted a TA11 and this new rifle was my excuse to get one. To be honest, if I could have picked any optic for this rifle, I probably would have gotten the TA55, but I was not able to pull that one off. I also got the TA11 for a great deal, so it was hard to pass up.
I will be sending the ACOG off the Trijicon in the very near future to have the reticle changed to a TA11f. I already have and use a donut reticle on my TA31 and a triangle on my TA47, so I want a chevron too. I think the Chevron would be better suited for this gun anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 6:41:53 PM EDT
[#4]
What advantage do you see in the TA55 over the TA11?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 7:36:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Neil,
What do they charge to change reticles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 7:43:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Don't ask...
I'm not kidding on this: I remember seeing somewhere on Trijicon's website that they said it is >>cheaper<< to just buy another Acog than it would be to switch reticles! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 7:48:36 PM EDT
[#7]
Well hey, now I REALLY have another excuse [:D]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 9:09:39 PM EDT
[#8]
Well, the ACOG I got for such a good deal is as old as the hills! Serial # on it is 1661. So... the tritium is fairly dim. So I caleld to see if I can get the tritium replaced. They said sure. I then asked if when they did that, could they change the reticle or would it be a problem. They said it would be very easy because the tritium lamp was part of the housing that also contained the reticle. So it would be just as easy to replace the lamp with the reticle I wanted as it would be for them to put another donut. If I recall, the price was something like $290. I will do it soon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2003 9:11:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Oh, and I would have liked the TA55 simply for the greater magnification. I think it might have been useful for this rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 8:03:49 AM EDT
[#10]
Oh look!!! New picture!!!
[img]http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid93/pb8b5d4f5234174fa5f2bb35e3b303f1c/fa4b7e13.jpg[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 8:32:17 AM EDT
[#11]
One of the few camo jobs I've seen that actually breaks up the outline.
Excellent work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 9:19:07 AM EDT
[#12]
So how do you paint an Aimpoint of ACOG without damaging it?
Surely you don't take it apart, so how is it done? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 9:50:53 AM EDT
[#13]
[shock]
Imagine the look on the Trijicon tech's face when he opens the return box... Maybe they'll speed up your work and get it back to you asap! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 10:25:51 AM EDT
[#14]
Neil, you have too much shit, and need to share some! What configuration don't you have?
You need to go "old school" now. The rifles look great, but you keep confusing me, and I can't decide what I want on my rifle. BTW, I have nearly the same thing as you in .308, now. All I'm missing is picking what BUIS to add. -Troy PS, Can I have your leftovers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:09:46 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: So how do you paint an Aimpoint of ACOG without damaging it? Surely you don't take it apart, so how is it done? Masking tape over the lenses and have at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2003 2:23:18 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: So how do you paint an Aimpoint of ACOG without damaging it? Surely you don't take it apart, so how is it done? Masking tape over the lenses and have at it. And just flip up the caps on the Aimpoint. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2003 11:13:20 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Hey HAWKEYE, is that the CQB Soutions Chest rig? How do you like it? One their site it says 3 mags, but I've heard it'll hold 6. That true? What other pouches do you have on there? Yes it is. I absolutely LOVE it. Its part of my emergency gear. It does hold 3 mags. I dont see how you could fit 6 in it. It has two spare attachment points on either side. I have a spare pistol mag pouch on each side. Still have two open slots. Going to put a pouch on one side for a surefire light. Not sure what I am going to put on the other side, if anything. He is a pick of me and New-arguy at one of our shoots. We both have them. I am really sold on it, its well made and VERY functional. Mine might be an oddball, but I can get 6 mags into my CQB SOL. chest rig. [url]http://www.hunt101.com/img/055103.jpg[/url] I'll second Hawkeye's opinion, it's a handy piece of gear and hard to beat for the price. [8D] I just got one of the CQB chest pouches. My takes six too, so I asked if this was a new design..... [i]"The original design for the chest rig was set up to hold three mags only, but we found that due to slight variations in the production runs, you could often fit six. So, we started making sure each one that came off the line could hold six or three without having to add any additional bulk to the rig."[/i] So far I think this thing is great! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2003 11:15:27 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: Can I play too? Just got the last batch of parts (at least til AWB sunset) tonight! [url]http://home.earthlink.net/~zzxx99/zzsprbine2.jpg[/url] ZZ, what front sight do you have on there? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2003 3:32:57 PM EDT
[#19]
Looks like a Knights... just like mine.
Oh, and BTW, this is an IMPORTANT update. When I first put this together, I thought that the lower rail ofthe bi-level SIRs were the same height as the flat top. I was wrong, they are not. They are slightly higher. I dont know how much higher, but they are higher. The Knights flip up front is designed to be placed on a rail that is at the same level as the flat top... like a Kights URXII, FF RAS or RAS II. Wes from MSTN was the first to tell me that the lower rail on the SIR was not the same height and that I might have issues zeroing the Knights sight to the SIR. HE told me this the day before I was going to zero it!!!! Well, I went to zero the irons and he was right. I bottomed out the adjustment on the Knights front sight and I was still shooting about an inch low at 50 yards. I was left with either getting a new flip up front, possibly shaving the height of the Knight front sight post, or just leaving it as it is and compensating for it. I've decided I will keep the Knights front sight on, but still dont know if I will shave it or just "aim a little high". The answer to that will depend upon just how much 1" low at 50 will screw up my IBZ. Anyone know? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2003 4:02:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Neil, How about removing alittle off the top of the front sight at a time to get your poa/poi at 50?
I'm glad you found this out, because I was thinking of the KAC also, I guess I'll stick with the PRI now. Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2003 5:36:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Yeah, thats what I was talking about when I said I might shave the front sight down a little. I dont know? I'll wait to see if I can hear from someone on how badly or how little this will effect my poa/poi out at longer distances. We'll see, the amount I'll be using the irons on this gun will be quite minimal, but I do want something functional.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2003 6:29:41 PM EDT
[#22]
That I don't know. When I had an M1A, A buddy set up the front sight for me by filing it down so when th erear was bottomed out, the rifle would be right on at 100 using the match load. SO I don't see any reason why taking some off the top won't work here. It won't be much, the same as one to two 1/4 turns with the front sight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2003 4:17:15 AM EDT
[#23]
Guy I know is borrowing SPRbine for a 3 gun match this weekend... He's a pretty competitive shooter so Im interested to see how the rifle does and what he thinks about it. If I had the time, I'd be taking it myself to use, but sadly I wont be making it.
I'll be taking it out myself to do some real shooting with it for the first time about the first weekend in January. So far all I've had the time to do is shoot it to test for function and zero the irons and dope the scope! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2003 5:03:22 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Looks like a Knights... just like mine. Oh, and BTW, this is an IMPORTANT update. When I first put this together, I thought that the lower rail ofthe bi-level SIRs were the same height as the flat top. I was wrong, they are not. They are slightly higher. I dont know how much higher, but they are higher. The Knights flip up front is designed to be placed on a rail that is at the same level as the flat top... like a Kights URXII, FF RAS or RAS II. Wes from MSTN was the first to tell me that the lower rail on the SIR was not the same height and that I might have issues zeroing the Knights sight to the SIR. HE told me this the day before I was going to zero it!!!! Well, I went to zero the irons and he was right. I bottomed out the adjustment on the Knights front sight and I was still shooting about an inch low at 50 yards. I was left with either getting a new flip up front, possibly shaving the height of the Knight front sight post, or just leaving it as it is and compensating for it. I've decided I will keep the Knights front sight on, but still dont know if I will shave it or just "aim a little high". The answer to that will depend upon just how much 1" low at 50 will screw up my IBZ. Anyone know? Thanks! That's what I wanted to know. I was concerned about everything lining up right. Which KAC front sight is it? Do they make more then one? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2003 5:17:59 AM EDT
[#25]
Don't forget Troy Industry's flip up front sight, also made to mount on a rail handguard:
[img]troyind.com/images/front_sight4.jpg[/img] KAC also makes another for the SR25, though I haven't seen it much: [img]www.tjacorp.com/knights_1_sr_25_flip_up_front_sight.jpg[/img] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2003 4:47:57 AM EDT
[#26]
Got a link for Troy?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2003 5:00:46 AM EDT
[#27]
[url=www.gandrtactical.com]C4iGrant[/url] sells the KAC rail mounted folding front sight.
Here's his ad on the EE: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=25&t=184211[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2003 5:19:21 AM EDT
[#28]
[url]troyind.com[/url]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2003 8:25:47 PM EDT
[#29]
I dont know a thing about them or it, but that Troy Ind. sight does look nice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2003 10:25:54 PM EDT
[#30]
ARMS SIR #59 weighs... 29 oz.
HOT DIGGIDY DANG!!! Almost 2 more pounds on an already almost 8 pound AR. I've been trying to come up with ways (turn and flute, V-match upper, etc) to reduce the weight on my bare bones but porky Dissipator. It all seemed so dreamy until I found this chart. [img]http://appliedinc.com/railsys8.gif[/img] 29 oz. oh, the swing weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 2:49:09 PM EDT
[#31]
For a gun thats meant to be quick and handy, maybe the #59 isnt the best choice. Heck, for that matter, the Dissipator design may not be the best choice. It all depends what you want most out of your gun. If you wanted something that was going to be light and maneuverable, maybe a standard carbine upper, or even a mid length would have been a better choice? A 16" HBAR dissipator is a lot of good things, but light and handy is not really one of them.
The SPRbine I built was more to try and have a small carbine, capable of better than average precision at moderate to longer than moderate ranges, while still being able to use it quickly at in your face ranges if need be. So far I've not had a chance to shoot it enough to tell if it works in that capacity. It appears that the shooting I have done tells me I have achieved building it to shoot better than average precision. The rest I will tell in time, but I am optomistic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 3:40:16 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: For a gun thats meant to be quick and handy, maybe the #59 isnt the best choice. Heck, for that matter, the Dissipator design may not be the best choice. It all depends what you want most out of your gun. If you wanted something that was going to be light and maneuverable, maybe a standard carbine upper, or even a mid length would have been a better choice? A 16" HBAR dissipator is a lot of good things, but light and handy is not really one of them. Says you. [;D] Mine seems pretty fast and handy.[nana] [^] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 4:28:33 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: The SPRbine I built was more to try and have a small carbine, capable of better than average precision at moderate to longer than moderate ranges, while still being able to use it quickly at in your face ranges if need be. So far I've not had a chance to shoot it enough to tell if it works in that capacity. It appears that the shooting I have done tells me I have achieved building it to shoot better than average precision. The rest I will tell in time, but I am optomistic. You mean the "Recon rifle"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 5:28:10 PM EDT
[#34]
Dinger, same basic concept, different execution. The RECCE rifle used a 16" barrel with full length gas system, the PRI Gen 3 handguard, ACOG TA01NSN, and the KAC QD Comp. RECCE was also select fire with the KAC trigger [;)]
I was in the process of building one up until I saw Steve Troy's latest offering: [img]http://www.troyind.com/images/right_side.jpg[/img] He did everything that I wanted to do, in a much neater package. Yes, Hawkeye, that's what my UCR Part II is going to look like [:)] I think it'll compliment Part I rather nicely, hehehe. -Cap'n |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 5:53:22 PM EDT
[#35]
[img]home.earthlink.net/~whitman/CARBINE.JPG[/img]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 6:09:45 PM EDT
[#36]
Duffy, me and two friends are just sitting by my house. Titanic is on tv... everything is pretty quiet and I am looking at AR15.com. I just scrolled down, saw that picture, and said aloud, "Wow, thats a nice looking rifle!". Thats pretty cool man, is it yours?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 6:17:45 PM EDT
[#37]
Yes indeed, some very nice set ups! That's what make things interesting, so many ways to outfit them.
Neil, Did you work out the front sight issue? Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 6:30:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Why, thanks new-arguy, it's mine [:d] At the beginning of this thread I had said I was swapping out the 20" barrel for a shorter one because it looked goofy with a collapsible stock.
This was before the barrel change [img]www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid89/pd7ce5c59541ca842958ba8f872442b6f/fa780899.jpg[/img] I had done the work a few weeks ago, I just got the reproduction SPR brake from Steve at ADCO last week, maybe one day I'll get to shoot it [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 7:01:15 PM EDT
[#39]
Duffy, I almost spit Gatorade on my keyboard when I saw that pic. Trade out the 14.5" for a 16" with KAC QD and you've got what I had halfway built. Well, that and a KAC 600M rear, and the DD FFRAS over the KAC FFRAS. That's an awesome rig!
Damn, you guys are going to end up costing me even more money... -Cap'n |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 7:11:09 PM EDT
[#40]
[b]
Quoted: Dinger, same basic concept, different execution. The RECCE rifle used a 16" barrel with full length gas system, the PRI Gen 3 handguard, ACOG TA01NSN, and the KAC QD Comp. RECCE was also select fire with the KAC trigger [;)][/b] I certainly agree the term "Recon rifle" refers to the concept. The concept of a AR flat top uppered 16" designated marksman rifle. Problem is the concept has already been named. Named by one of the premier Special Operations Organizations in the world. What handguard/scope/trigger is used makes absolutely no difference. Does adding a SIR, Trijicon, match trigger to an M4 change its designation? Just out of curiosity, were did you get those specs for SEAL team recon rifle? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 7:30:09 PM EDT
[#41]
Cap'n Crunch, you may spend some money but you'll be happy (and broke) [:)]
I'm always looking here for experts' opinions and ideas, I came up with this combination based on various established products, a kind of SPR/Carbine/Dissipator (by mounting the front sight well forward and using a full length handguard) hybrid [:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 7:48:48 PM EDT
[#42]
I got a pic of the rifle and specs from Dave Dunlap at PRI almost a year ago. Heck, it might have been longer than a year.
I dunno about the rest, but I believe gas system length and the type of barrel used does play a role in the designation of the weapon. What makes an M4 Carbine just that? A carbine length 14.5" M4 contoured 1/7 barrel is one of the determining factors, correct? That is why the R0921HB is not referred to as an M4. And I'd just like to add, the trigger, handguard, and optic do make a difference in designation to some degree as evidenced by MK12 Mod 1 and MK12 Mod 0 SPRs (and Mod 0(A), Mod 1(A)). Both are still being procured and put into service. Anyhow, I think I'm gonna go crash... I've got Simunitions force on force crap bright and early tomorrow. And I'm already getting grumpy cause I'm up past my bedtime [;)] -Cap'n |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 8:21:38 PM EDT
[#43]
[b]Quoted:
I got a pic of the rifle and specs from Dave Dunlap at PRI almost a year ago. Heck, it might have been longer than a year. [/b] Thats exactly my point. This already has been done and named. Your specs are just specific to the PRI version. I have no idea if those are the specs the TEAMS submitted to CRANE. I know Wes has been looking into getting the exact specs for the recon rifle. [b]Quoted: And I'd just like to add, the trigger, handguard, and optic do make a difference in designation to some degree as evidenced by MK12 Mod 1 and MK12 Mod 0 SPRs (and Mod 0(A), Mod 1(A)). Both are still being procured and put into service.[/b] I certianly agree, but my point is that they are both still 18" barreled SPR's. So, logic would say any 16" barreled AR flat top designated sniper rifle would still be a "Recon rifle" no matter what handgaurd+scope option was used. Maybe a diferent type designation (Mod1,Mod2,Mod3 or so on), but thats it. Does that not make sense? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 8:26:57 PM EDT
[#44]
WOW at the Troy gun.
WOW at Duffy's. Damn I need to win the lotto or get a real job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 9:12:26 PM EDT
[#45]
The PRI version is the only version. It was built by PRI for the SEALs. If you want the specs, I'm sure PRI would let you know if you asked. Hell, go to Tac Forums and search on the SEALS forum. Frogman has posted the specs at least once that I know of. I'd post, but I really need to crash by now.
Lumpy, if I win the lottery I'll buy you one too ;) -Cap'n |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2003 10:01:50 PM EDT
[#46]
I've been a member over there for awhile, no real specific information is in any of the previous threads. I asked Frogman for specific recon rifle specs recently, but he hasn't replied yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2003 5:01:15 AM EDT
[#47]
Duffy, VERY nice indeed. [^]
Cap........Um....Wow. Thats just beautiful. Its getting me all misty eyed the more I look at it. [headbang] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2003 5:53:45 AM EDT
[#48]
Yup, I was just over the Tac Forums and also requested some specifics on the Recon Rifle.
Capn_Crunch, is PRI building the Recon Rifle? Frogman said they submitted the request to Crane and got the Army's version[BD], he didn't mention that any other companies were involved. Oh well, nowadays who knows how far the web is spun...[:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/22/2003 10:50:41 AM EDT
[#49]
Newarguy, what is your opinion on the recon rifle?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/23/2003 7:55:12 AM EDT
[#50]
I just found the thread on Tactical forums that I was looking for. Frogman is the moderator of this forum and a Navy SEAL.
[b]Orignally posted by Frogman on Tacticalforums: "The Teams designed a 16 inch uper M4, dubbed the Recon rifle, and after working the bugs out of the components and ammunition turned the info over to the SOPMOD project managers at NSWC (Crane, IN) in order for Crane to make a specific quantity to outfit a wider number of SEAL snipers. The idea behind the "recon rifle" was to outfit SEAL snipers on recon missions with an M4 that had a little bit better reach and lethality in the event that your recon op suddenly turned into a "target of opportunity" mission". [/b] [url]http://www.tacticalforums.com[/url] I can't get the exact thread to link for some reason. Try a search on the "Navy SEALS" forum for SPR. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
