AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/7/2009 4:31:10 PM EDT
| I was originally set on building a SPR Mk12 Mod 1 and still am leaning towards that but I'm also interested in a Recce. I'm having trouble finding the exact specs –– mainly because I think they very greatly –– but why would you pick one over the other? Correct me if i'm wrong but the Recce seems to just be a 16" differently profiled SPR made to fill the same mission requirements? Which one is better to start with and why? I'll probably end up with both eventually anyways so which one first –– disregard the fact that I'm leaning towards SPR and because I've always wanted one of those for now. Thanks -K2I2 |
| I built an SPR first as a straight precision rifle. I enjoy shooting it and it has turned out to be very accurate. I just built a Recce rifle that is for both accuracy, as well as run and gun style stuff. The Recce is really the best of both worlds, a fighting rifle that is accurate to 400 yds and maybe longer. The SPR will stretch that distance to probably 600 yd effective range. But the range of your Recce depends on what optic you choose. |
|
Thanks,
I think I'll start with the SPR just because I've always been into precision shooting –– at a distance –– and that's what I've always wanted. Did you find the Recce to be more "run and gun" because it is more wieldly and slightly shorter, or is there something else about it such as the optic like you mentioned? |
|
I agree with quantim...
I originally wanted to build an SPR as a dedicated long range precision rifle but realized that I can build a 16" (now I realize it is essentially a Recce) that will be just as capable but use lower power optics. An SPR typically uses a 2.5-10x to 4.5-18x but I'm using an XTR-14 (1-4x) on my Recce build that I'm very happy with. I've only been able to shoot out to 300yds but can keep 7" groups, and that is with my upper that started as an RRA carbine. I have a new custom upper on the way, can't wait to get it out to the range! |
I LOVE my Mark 12 Mod 1
Actually I'm now the process of building a recce that's sort of a baby brother SPR. Got most of the parts together, just waiting on the barrel. Compass Lake is making me a stainless 16" Douglas midlength barrel contoured to accept the OPS INC brake-collar. Larue 11" rails, Colt M4 upper and BCG, LMT lower with SOPMOD and 2 stage trigger. Hopefully will have it all together in about a month. |
|
Quoted:
Correct me if i'm wrong but the Recce seems to just be a 16" differently profiled SPR made to fill the same mission requirements? It's the other way around, the Recce was first, and it grew into the SPR. The SEALs wanted an accurized M4. Something that wouldn't stick out, but would give them the ability to make precision shots. Crane went to work, and came up with the SPR which was more than what the SEALs had asked for. The way I look at it is that the Recce is a carbine, and the SPR is a rifle. The Recce is more general purpose. And being a carbine, it's in the more popular layout. And base your decision off of that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correct me if i'm wrong but the Recce seems to just be a 16" differently profiled SPR made to fill the same mission requirements? It's the other way around, the Recce was first, and it grew into the SPR. The SEALs wanted an accurized M4. Something that wouldn't stick out, but would give them the ability to make precision shots. Crane went to work, and came up with the SPR which was more than what the SEALs had asked for. The way I look at it is that the Recce is a carbine, and the SPR is a rifle. The Recce is more general purpose. And being a carbine, it's in the more popular layout. And base your decision off of that. Ok thanks. That just reinforces my decision to go with the SPR first. Thanks for all the input everyone, I appreciate it. -K2I2 |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Correct me if i'm wrong but the Recce seems to just be a 16" differently profiled SPR made to fill the same mission requirements? It's the other way around, the Recce was first, and it grew into the SPR. The SEALs wanted an accurized M4. Something that wouldn't stick out, but would give them the ability to make precision shots. Crane went to work, and came up with the SPR which was more than what the SEALs had asked for. The way I look at it is that the Recce is a carbine, and the SPR is a rifle. The Recce is more general purpose. And being a carbine, it's in the more popular layout. And base your decision off of that. From what I know, the SPR began as an AMU project before the NSWC tried to force it into the role that the USN SEAL's had requested. It wasn't what the SEALs wanted, but it's found success in its own right. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correct me if i'm wrong but the Recce seems to just be a 16" differently profiled SPR made to fill the same mission requirements? It's the other way around, the Recce was first, and it grew into the SPR. The SEALs wanted an accurized M4. Something that wouldn't stick out, but would give them the ability to make precision shots. Crane went to work, and came up with the SPR which was more than what the SEALs had asked for. The way I look at it is that the Recce is a carbine, and the SPR is a rifle. The Recce is more general purpose. And being a carbine, it's in the more popular layout. And base your decision off of that. From what I know, the SPR began as an AMU project before the NSWC tried to force it into the role that the USN SEAL's had requested. It wasn't what the SEALs wanted, but it's found success in its own right. I'm confused by this –– don't the seals still use Mk12 mod 1's? |
|
My rifles are hunting rifles....that's what I use them for. I'm not a Navy Seal or an Army Ranger.
With that in mind, you can certainly "leverage" information based on their builds. My "Recce" has a 16" midlength barrel with a 13.8" troy rail and a 1-4x Scope. I don't have a bipod on it but since I have a rail, the option is there. Reason I don't have a bipod is because I haven't decided if it's something I need for hunting coyotes.....and I'd like to keep the weight reasonable. If I ever decide to hunt at night (in a state where it's allowed), I can easily get a light mount and a light to take with me. The versatility and convenience are there. My "SPR" has an 18" Compass Lake barrel with a rifle length gas system underneath a 13.8" Troy rail (same reason as above). I am going to be putting a 3-9x Leupold Mark AR scope on it. This is the gun I'm going to use for longer range hunting...again, it's a yote gun. Like I said, my rifles are for hunting. I am anal about accuracy capability so I went with a recce variant and a SPR variant and tailored to what I will be doing with the guns....that's what you have to ask yourself....what are you going to do with them? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correct me if i'm wrong but the Recce seems to just be a 16" differently profiled SPR made to fill the same mission requirements? It's the other way around, the Recce was first, and it grew into the SPR. The SEALs wanted an accurized M4. Something that wouldn't stick out, but would give them the ability to make precision shots. Crane went to work, and came up with the SPR which was more than what the SEALs had asked for. The way I look at it is that the Recce is a carbine, and the SPR is a rifle. The Recce is more general purpose. And being a carbine, it's in the more popular layout. And base your decision off of that. From what I know, the SPR began as an AMU project before the NSWC tried to force it into the role that the USN SEAL's had requested. It wasn't what the SEALs wanted, but it's found success in its own right. I'm confused by this –– don't the seals still use Mk12 mod 1's? It gets confusing because info on the Recce has spread mostly by word of mouth. While, the SPR has been photographed a lot and a lot of info could be gained that way. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correct me if i'm wrong but the Recce seems to just be a 16" differently profiled SPR made to fill the same mission requirements? It's the other way around, the Recce was first, and it grew into the SPR. The SEALs wanted an accurized M4. Something that wouldn't stick out, but would give them the ability to make precision shots. Crane went to work, and came up with the SPR which was more than what the SEALs had asked for. The way I look at it is that the Recce is a carbine, and the SPR is a rifle. The Recce is more general purpose. And being a carbine, it's in the more popular layout. And base your decision off of that. From what I know, the SPR began as an AMU project before the NSWC tried to force it into the role that the USN SEAL's had requested. It wasn't what the SEALs wanted, but it's found success in its own right. I'm confused by this –– don't the seals still use Mk12 mod 1's? It gets confusing because info on the Recce has spread mostly by word of mouth. While, the SPR has been photographed a lot and a lot of info could be gained that way. I see. Thanks for the info/opinions everyone. I appreciate it and I'll post pics of the final product! |
|
Quoted:
It's the other way around, the Recce was first, and it grew into the SPR. The SEALs wanted an accurized M4. Something that wouldn't stick out, but would give them the ability to make precision shots. Crane went to work, and came up with the SPR which was more than what the SEALs had asked for. Are you sure about that? If you have a source for that info I'd love to read it because that is the exact opposite of how I heard it. My understanding is the SF guys wanted a REECE and Crane took it upon themselves to create the SPR. The SEALS tried the SPR's but they didn't work well for the way the SF guys wanted to use them so those rifles have been slowly getting converting to the REECEs type config that the SF guys originally asked for. Quoted:
The way I look at it is that the Recce is a carbine, and the SPR is a rifle. The Recce is more general purpose. And being a carbine, it's in the more popular layout. I agree with that and that's why I prefer the REECE. Much more flexable and practical as an all around, multi purpose rig IMO. That's what the SPR was supposed to be but is still too big and heavy to be used for anything more then a dedicated bench\target\sniper platform. That's fine if that's what you want but in that case I thnk you would be better off with a full on 20" rifle like the USMC's SAM-R. The SPR was supposed to be a compromise between something like the SAM-R and the REECE but again IMO, the SPR missed that mark. Not looking for a fight guys, that's just my opinion on it. |
| crane org. developed the "seal recon rifle" or "recce-type" to fill a DMR role but as the operators in the field reported back that they were less than pleased, this entire weapon was put aside, and the "SPR" was born, and yielded many positive results from operators in the field and esp. in afganistan. The recce/recon rifle never evolved to some spr build, these are 2 different guns. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: It's the other way around, the Recce was first, and it grew into the SPR. The SEALs wanted an accurized M4. Something that wouldn't stick out, but would give them the ability to make precision shots. Crane went to work, and came up with the SPR which was more than what the SEALs had asked for. Are you sure about that? If you have a source for that info I'd love to read it because that is the exact opposite of how I heard it. My understanding is the SF guys wanted a REECE and Crane took it upon themselves to create the SPR. The SEALS tried the SPR's but they didn't work well for the way the SF guys wanted to use them so those rifles have been slowly getting converting to the REECEs type config that the SF guys originally asked for. Quoted: The way I look at it is that the Recce is a carbine, and the SPR is a rifle. The Recce is more general purpose. And being a carbine, it's in the more popular layout. I agree with that and that's why I prefer the REECE. Much more flexable and practical as an all around, multi purpose rig IMO. That's what the SPR was supposed to be but is still too big and heavy to be used for anything more then a dedicated bench\target\sniper platform. That's fine if that's what you want but in that case I thnk you would be better off with a full on 20" rifle like the USMC's SAM-R. The SPR was supposed to be a compromise between something like the SAM-R and the REECE but again IMO, the SPR missed that mark. Not looking for a fight guys, that's just my opinion on it. Stryfe's information is incorrect... but at the same time I cannot and will not offer up concrete proof. The people behind the scenes at the AMU and NSWC know the story. SPR/Recce aficionados and site sponsors/vendors such as ADCO and MSTN will be able to corroborate my story. The SPR was a project the AMU started, and Crane took over it. Crane pushed the SPR onto the SEAL's request for a Recce rifle, which was like putting a square block into a circular hole. The SPR is more of quasi sniper rifle than a Recce rifle, so a Recce rifle development has continued. I personally think that SPR is the superior choice between the SAM-R and SDM rifles. The SPR is now fielded by the Army, Navy, and Marines. Check out the 50 page SPR thread for range report by a Marine and Arfcom member with an issued Mk 12 Mod 1.
|
|
BAW - I may not have worded it well but I think we are on the same page re: REECE vs. SPR development
Quoted:
I personally think that SPR is the superior choice between the SAM-R and SDM rifles. Why do you say that? I can see that assuming you are running it with a can. I have come to realize that a suppressor does offer a lot of advantages for a DMR\sniper and the shorter\lighter barrel profile of the SPR would help compensate for the added weight\length of the can. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correct me if i'm wrong but the Recce seems to just be a 16" differently profiled SPR made to fill the same mission requirements? It's the other way around, the Recce was first, and it grew into the SPR. The SEALs wanted an accurized M4. Something that wouldn't stick out, but would give them the ability to make precision shots. Crane went to work, and came up with the SPR which was more than what the SEALs had asked for. The way I look at it is that the Recce is a carbine, and the SPR is a rifle. The Recce is more general purpose. And being a carbine, it's in the more popular layout. And base your decision off of that. From what I know, the SPR began as an AMU project before the NSWC tried to force it into the role that the USN SEAL's had requested. It wasn't what the SEALs wanted, but it's found success in its own right. I understand that to be the case as well. |
|
Quoted: BAW - I may not have worded it well but I think we are on the same page re: REECE vs. SPR development Quoted: I personally think that SPR is the superior choice between the SAM-R and SDM rifles. Why do you say that? I can see that assuming you are running it with a can. I have come to realize that a suppressor does offer a lot of advantages for a DMR\sniper and the shorter\lighter barrel profile of the SPR would help compensate for the added weight\length of the can. The fact it's contoured for the OPS Inc 12th model suppressor which is known for improving accuracy rather than shifting POI is icing on the cake. Don't have a OPS 12th can personally, but at $800, it's on my short "to buy" list.
|
|
Build both, I did! I have found though I shoot my MOD 0 more than my REECE.
SPR PRI HGs PRI flip up front sight/gas block White Oak barrel rifle length action OPS brake & collar OPS 12th Model - waiting on BATF approval A.R.M.S. 40 SP rear buis A.R.M.S. top rail LaRue SPR 1.5 mount Leupold 2.5x8 MR/T, TMR lit reticle, scope LMT lower with LMT SOPMOD stock Magpul MIAD grip Gessel trigger REECE 16" White Oak barrel mid action LaRue 13 free float rail PRI low profile gas block MI front flip sight A.R.M.S. rear 40SP Vortex FH ACOG TA31 LaRue quick release mount LMT lower with SOPMOD stock Magpul MIAD grip Gessel trigger As you can see the SPR is a dead on clone, now as to the REECE, its kinda built along the lines of a REECE but used what I had or could get. I had a hard time choosing the MOD 0 or the MOD 1, but I like the way the scope lines up for me on the MOD 0 thanks to the ARMS top rail. ETA page 2 is mine 
|
AR Sponsor