Considerations for a Mid-Range (Recce-type) Weapon

AR-15 » Rifles, Uppers, Lowers, Barrels, and more

AR Sponsor:

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Considerations for a Mid-Range (Recce-type) Weapon (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 10/21/2005 11:18:15 AM EDT

Hi guys. I'm looking for advice on building a primarily mid-range weapon with the ability to handle close quarter scenarios as well. Ideally there would be a perfect carbine that would effectively handle the entire continuum of scenarios--ranging from close range at one end to long range at the other.

Since this isn't realistic, I would like my weapon to be a compromise between these two ends of the continuum, with a slight emphasis on mid-range shooting--most likely, from 150 to 400 yards.

Here is what I am considering so far, but I would like some input from those with experience:

Noveske Afhan Barrel (1/7 twist, 14.5")
LaRue 12.0
LaRue GB
Noveske KFH or KX3 (perm. attached)
Troy Front and Rear BUIS
CMT Upper receiver, MPI tested bolt and carrier
Noveske Lower with SOPMOD stock
Nightforce NSX 2.5-10
LaRue SPR mount

Here is what I am unsure about:

1. Length of barrel - I have been strongly considering the 16" Recon, however, it seems that it will not offer a significant improvement in accuracy. Also, from what I can tell, the bullet paths are VERY similar across 14.5" and 16" barrels for most rounds out to 400 yards. The 16" does, however, increase the fragmentation range of the rounds. Moreover, the 16" does not require a permanently attached FH.

2. KFH - I have read a great deal about this flash hider over at 10-8 forums. I have concluded that it is just as efficient for hiding flash as compared to the A2 FH on longer weapons and significantly more efficient on shorter weapons. The real benefits seem to be less muzzle flip, and reduced noise to the shooter when using longer 14.5" barrels. The major downfall is weight, and in my situation, it will make removing the rail and changing the gas tube an impossible task--due to its permanent attachment. For these two reasons I am undecided as to whether I should use this FH.

3. Nightforce - I am pretty confident about this optic for the purpose of the rifle, but I'd like to hear opinions in this regard as well--especially since it is NOT cheap.

Sorry for the long post. I just want to be sure that I "think twice and buy once."

Posted: 10/21/2005 11:22:22 AM EDT

[#1]

You choices look good. I would however go with the 16" and a Vortex. This way you can always change your mind about rails without having to un-pin the KRINK.

C4

www.GRTactical.com

Noveske 16"

Posted: 10/21/2005 11:41:33 AM EDT

[#2]

It seems to me that the Nightforce has too much magnification for CQB. The illumination is not bright enough to enable BAC shooting like with an ACOG, or so I am told.

I personally don't see much of a reason for a KFH on a barrel that long. They are really best used on 10.5s or 12.5s, at least to my mind.

Posted: 10/21/2005 11:57:21 AM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
It seems to me that the Nightforce has too much magnification for CQB. The illumination is not bright enough to enable BAC shooting like with an ACOG, or so I am told.

I personally don't see much of a reason for a KFH on a barrel that long. They are really best used on 10.5s or 12.5s, at least to my mind.

I agree that the scope selected is to much for CQB, but I got the impression that he was interested in doing most of his shooting out past 100yds. If this weapon is going to be doing much to any CQB work then I would get a 1-4 variable dot (like the SN-4 pictured) as it can do CQB to midrange.

C4

Posted: 10/21/2005 12:05:12 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
It seems to me that the Nightforce has too much magnification for CQB. The illumination is not bright enough to enable BAC shooting like with an ACOG, or so I am told.

I personally don't see much of a reason for a KFH on a barrel that long. They are really best used on 10.5s or 12.5s, at least to my mind.

I agree that the scope selected is to much for CQB, but I got the impression that he was interested in doing most of his shooting out past 100yds. If this weapon is going to be doing much to any CQB work then I would get a 1-4 variable dot (like the SN-4 pictured) as it can do CQB to midrange.

C4

Understood. He did mention close range, but you're right.

I am gonna have to go with a short dot..... I want one ar, and only one, so its gotta do everything.

Posted: 10/21/2005 12:23:41 PM EDT

[#5]

I recommend a 16-18" light to mid weight barrel for general use. It has more velocity which pays off in less windage and drop on 250 - 500 yard targets (and further), when compared to the 14.5". Another reason to get a 16" is that you can change muzzle device, which you cannot do with the 14.5 unless you have a SBR'd lower. 14.5" is a good choice if you need the minimum OAL possible but do not want to go SBR.

My own preference in a general purpose "practical" optic is the TA11 ACOG. Everyone with a S&B Short Dot loves them and from the specs they look great-- I just haven't tried one yet. I would like the SN4 a lot more if it were smaller, lighter, and could illuminate its reticle as bright as the ACOG and S&B.

It is viable to keep an optic for primarily > 100 yard use, but remove it and deploy the BUIS when you'll be in very close quarters, or swap it for an Aimpoint. Use of LaRue mounts ensures zero will be retained.

Posted: 10/21/2005 1:01:47 PM EDT

[#6]

Thanks for the replies. I do want the focus of the rifle to be mid-range distances--about 150-400 yards. I would also like the rifle to be acceptable for CQB (Zak, I'm going to use an Aimpont M3/LT mount for this purpose, as you suggested). I'm not planning to shoot beyond 400 yards, so I don't think I need to go over 16" in length. At the same time, to cater toward the CQB end of the spectrum, I'm leaning toward a 14.5" barrel. Here is my thinking in this regard...correct me if I am wrong or missing something:

The difference in bullet drop looks to be minimal at these ranges when comparing the 14.5 and 16" barrels. When using 77gr Mk262, the 14.5" barrel results in 2.4" of additional bullet drop at 400 yards (BTW, I'm just pulling this info from the frag charts on the forums here). Now, if I did want to shoot out past 500 yards, the differences are much more significant. So, if SBR's were possible in WA, it seems this would be the best way to go. What do you guys think?

Since SBR's are not legal to own in WA, I have to consider the downside of the permanent FH. In this regard the KFH is probably the worse choice--you can't even slide the rail off the upper for maintenance or possible change in rail length (LT 12.0 to LT 9.0, etc). On the other hand, if I choose a more conventional FH, I would be able to slide the rail off, even if it was permanently attached.

Zak - what has your experience been with regard to the accuracy of the Afghan barrel?

Posted: 10/21/2005 1:14:31 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
I recommend a 16-18" light to mid weight barrel for general use. It has more velocity which pays off in less windage and drop on 250 - 500 yard targets (and further), when compared to the 14.5". Another reason to get a 16" is that you can change muzzle device, which you cannot do with the 14.5 unless you have a SBR'd lower. 14.5" is a good choice if you need the minimum OAL possible but do not want to go SBR.

My own preference in a general purpose "practical" optic is the TA11 ACOG. Everyone with a S&B Short Dot loves them and from the specs they look great-- I just haven't tried one yet. I would like the SN4 a lot more if it were smaller, lighter, and could illuminate its reticle as bright as the ACOG and S&B.

It is viable to keep an optic for primarily > 100 yard use, but remove it and deploy the BUIS when you'll be in very close quarters, or swap it for an Aimpoint. Use of LaRue mounts ensures zero will be retained.

Zak, having used the SN-4 and am now have a S&B short dot, I will say that the S&B has much better FOV and the illuminated dot is VERY bright and useable.

C4

Posted: 10/21/2005 1:32:53 PM EDT

[#8]

This thread is about splitting hairs. You can trade 1.5" of overall length, or trade 5" drop and 2" wind @ 400 yards, 50 yards of frag distance, a 0.1 - 0.3 second difference in target acquisition time, etc...

The biggest downside I see to a 14.5" is that you cannot remove the muzzle device.

If we use a 10" plate as a benchmark target and a 223 AR15 as the rifle, I am able to hit one with an EOTech/Aimpoint consistently in action matches out to about 150. With an ACOG, out to 400-450. With a 3-9 M/RT, 550-600 (depends more on wind conditions than anything else really).

There are a lot of choices out there-- heavy 14.5's, lighter 16-18's, KFH, Vortex, Bilock, A2 -- designed to solve different problems If you want a rifle that will perform FOR YOU, then it makes sense to refine down exactly what you want to do with the rifle, and then make choices to support that goal.

Posted: 10/21/2005 1:56:05 PM EDT

[#9]

I'd say go 16" so you can change things out and not worry about the SBR issue in WA. With a permanently attached hider you will limit your options over the long term. Heck, someone will probably put a new widget out on the market in a few months that you will need but not be able to use since your Krink is permanently attached... Just a thought...

Spooky

Posted: 10/21/2005 2:26:18 PM EDT

[#10]

I'll add to the chorus.. for your stated goals get the 16" barrel (at least). Better performance, minimum hassle.

Posted: 10/21/2005 4:35:31 PM EDT

[#11]

I built a mid-length 16" upper last week for a buddy of mine. The recoil is less and the extra sight radius is very noticeable. The first day at the range we put a number of rounds through it with 100% reliability and where hitting a 12" plate at 400 yards reliably. I am sold on the middy 16". With a quality barrel and good optics I think you would have a great <600 yard rifle.

IDHunt

P.S. Where in WA are you? I am close to the WA-ID border.

Posted: 10/21/2005 4:47:53 PM EDT

[#12]

noveske makes a lower?

just saw one in the pic thread, where would one go to get one? how much are they?

like the others i would get the 16" with a vortex/phantom/a2 over the perm. krink

i have a reece/recon build and i use an acog and think it works great but sometimes do wish i had more magnification for precise shots (and have considered the 2.5-10x nf) but the trade off is your decision and i like the ability to use the acog up close.

Posted: 10/21/2005 4:49:30 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I recommend a 16-18" light to mid weight barrel for general use. It has more velocity which pays off in less windage and drop on 250 - 500 yard targets (and further), when compared to the 14.5". Another reason to get a 16" is that you can change muzzle device, which you cannot do with the 14.5 unless you have a SBR'd lower. 14.5" is a good choice if you need the minimum OAL possible but do not want to go SBR.

My own preference in a general purpose "practical" optic is the TA11 ACOG. Everyone with a S&B Short Dot loves them and from the specs they look great-- I just haven't tried one yet. I would like the SN4 a lot more if it were smaller, lighter, and could illuminate its reticle as bright as the ACOG and S&B.

It is viable to keep an optic for primarily > 100 yard use, but remove it and deploy the BUIS when you'll be in very close quarters, or swap it for an Aimpoint. Use of LaRue mounts ensures zero will be retained.

Zak, having used the SN-4 and am now have a S&B short dot, I will say that the S&B has much better FOV and the illuminated dot is VERY bright and useable.

C4

www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/SandB%20short%20dot.JPG

have any payment plans or trade-ins for that bad boy?

Posted: 10/21/2005 5:56:45 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
noveske makes a lower?

just saw one in the pic thread, where would one go to get one? how much are they?

like the others i would get the 16" with a vortex/phantom/a2 over the perm. krink

i have a reece/recon build and i use an acog and think it works great but sometimes do wish i had more magnification for precise shots (and have considered the 2.5-10x nf) but the trade off is your decision and i like the ability to use the acog up close.

The Noveske lowers are $125 and can be bought here: jnrifleworks.com/cgi-bin/cart2/display.cgi?cat1=2&cat2=&cat3=&cat4=&start=10&keyword=&since=

C4

Posted: 10/21/2005 5:57:28 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I recommend a 16-18" light to mid weight barrel for general use. It has more velocity which pays off in less windage and drop on 250 - 500 yard targets (and further), when compared to the 14.5". Another reason to get a 16" is that you can change muzzle device, which you cannot do with the 14.5 unless you have a SBR'd lower. 14.5" is a good choice if you need the minimum OAL possible but do not want to go SBR.

My own preference in a general purpose "practical" optic is the TA11 ACOG. Everyone with a S&B Short Dot loves them and from the specs they look great-- I just haven't tried one yet. I would like the SN4 a lot more if it were smaller, lighter, and could illuminate its reticle as bright as the ACOG and S&B.

It is viable to keep an optic for primarily > 100 yard use, but remove it and deploy the BUIS when you'll be in very close quarters, or swap it for an Aimpoint. Use of LaRue mounts ensures zero will be retained.

Zak, having used the SN-4 and am now have a S&B short dot, I will say that the S&B has much better FOV and the illuminated dot is VERY bright and useable.

C4

www.gandrtactical.com/images/archive/SandB%20short%20dot.JPG

have any payment plans or trade-ins for that bad boy?

LOL, no payment plan.

C4

Posted: 10/21/2005 7:44:53 PM EDT

[#16]

I say you should get a suppressor. It will eliminate flash the best, boost velocity, reduce recoil, etc. Once you accept you should do that then everything changes.

The 2.5-10X NF is in no way a CQB scope. Not unles you stick a seperate Dr Optic on there somewhere. Think 1-4X or 50+ yard use otherwise.

How much frag range do you need? Why do you need it? An important question to ask. If you hunt you may have legitimate need for extended range. If its for humans then the average sniper shooting is under 100 yards here in the US. Do you need 200 yards of frag range? 150? or will 100 do? You are not going to EVER need the rifle to shoot at people over 100 yards. For paper the frag range is meaningless. Keep that in mind.

The frag range of 75 grain ammo at .223 pressure in a 14.5" is 100 yards and 150 for a 16"

The frag range of 75 grain ammo at 5.56 pressure from an 11.5" barrel is 100 yards and 125 with a suppressor. An 11.5" plus suppressor can be shorter than a 16" plus A2. Things to keep in mind.

To me, steppin up to a 16" or more is a job for an AR10. It needs to be that size to function propperly and it gives you much better long distance performance and long range terminal performance for prone, accurate shooting than a 5.56 platform.

Posted: 10/21/2005 9:04:03 PM EDT

[#17]

You know for 0-400yards the MR/T M2 or Accupoint would do the trick! But if you want to spend the big $$$$ get the Schmidt and Bender

The NXS is a great optic, but it was not designed for the CQB...

Ant

Posted: 10/21/2005 10:26:20 PM EDT

[#18]

I actually have both configurations you are considering with a 16.1 RECON and a 14.5 Afghan:
LaRue 13.2” rails
LaRue gas block
JP stainless BC’s
Fitted bolts
DD .315 Pin uppers
LaRue SPR-E mounts
Trijicon TR21 1.25-4X scopes

The 16.1” has a Miculek comp and the 14.5 has a U.S made Krink, exactly 1” deference in length between the 2 with the muzzle devices. They serve totally different uses for me. The 16 is my 3 gun upper and the 14.5 is my serious upper. I have done extensive testing with almost every muzzle device available and have developed a set of requirements that fit my needs. IMO their are 3 areas that a muzzle device can address:

1. Flash suppression, some concentrate on the shooters visibility of the flash and some on the observers.
2. Recoil reduction, most comps are vary bad at hiding flash.
3. Blast redirection, this is a very big issue on shorter barrels and in confined spaces

A by product of the current war is we have found a new issue that needs attention, signature reduction a combination of #1 &2 above and if we can have a positive effect on #3 all the better.

Suppressors are king at signature reduction & recoil reduction but cause numerous other issues in the weapons system that limit them to specialized missions. Of all the muzzle devices I have tested the Krink is the only one that addresses 1, 2 &3 and is the best muzzle device if you require all 3 areas to be addressed. I shoot 50,000-100,000 rounds a year and I am spoiled, I require a gun to be flat shooting. The Krink on the 14.5 is 97% as flat as the 16.1” with the Miculek, on a shot timer there is no difference shot to shot but a real difference in velocity and drop at 300+ that is why I use the 16.1“ for 3 gun. In the other 2 areas it far out performs the 16.1 and would much rather shoot inside any confined space with it. A 16.1” with a Krink feels bad in balance and sluggish in transitions target to target. The permanent attaching requirements on the 14.5 & Krink are a pain so analyze the extra hassles. A 16.1” with a muzzle device tailored to what performance factor is the most important to you is a wonderful gun.
Out.
2011BLDR

Posted: 10/22/2005 1:53:42 PM EDT

[#19]

For up close shooting I use a 3.5x TA11, so I am going to disagree with the prevailing thought on the Nightforce. At 2.5x you'll be able to use a Nightforce in that role just fine, you won't get Aimpoint like performance; but it will run pretty quick. I've only looked at the FC-2 reticle; but I found it very usable for BAC and plenty bright. Like the ACOG, if the background gets too bright you just fade to the black reticle anyway. I believe Nightforce also does a 1-4x as well; but S&B makes a great line of scopes if you can swing the cash. Since you'll have an Aimpoint too, you should have no problems.

I think the 16" barrel is the way to go though, permanent muzzle devices are a pain and any better handling you get from the shorter barrel can also be achieved by a lighter profile barrel in the 16". The length itself isn't really an issue in my limited experience - anywhere a 16" is too long, a 14.5" is too long as well.

Posted: 10/22/2005 8:18:01 PM EDT

[#20]

Thanks for the input guys. This is VERY helpful information and I've got a bit more thinking to do.

DevL - Unfortunately, WA is not a suppressor friendly state, so that's not an option for me. Fortunately, we'll be moving soon.

Posted: 10/22/2005 9:02:37 PM EDT

[#21]

The big problem with MOST suppressors is that they add 1-2 lbs mass at the muzzle and increase the OAL by 2 - 6".

Posted: 10/23/2005 8:33:32 PM EDT

[#22]

latest version of my Dennys recon with the addition of my new 1.5X5 MRT / Larue SPR combo.........with the 77gr. Mk.262 turret.......also hanging out with a couple boxes of Mk.262. OD TD and magpulled got the LMT 2 stage trigger installed.........sweet......................I run it with a aimpoint for CQB and a Leupy 1.5X5 for everything from 50 out to 250 ( in a pinch the leupy will do good for close up, though not as good as a dedicated CQB scope like aimopoint or EoTech). I like Dennys and will be havin Denny do a JN build in the very near future...........either one in my humble opion would satisfy...I would stay away from the 14.5 with a perm. attached Noveske KFH or KX3 for the reasons you already cited...16 inch is the way to go unless you really want to do the SBR paperwork for the 14.5.....good luck

overall

Leupy retical shot illum.

sorry.......not the best photog. in the world..........

Posted: 10/23/2005 10:22:33 PM EDT

[#23]

beware1gun - that's a nice looking rifle.

I'm starting to lean toward the Noveske Recon (16") but I haven't made up my mind yet. If I do go with the Afghan (14.5") I'll use the Vortex so that the rail can be removed from the barrel.

Posted: 10/24/2005 2:15:08 PM EDT

[#24]

Is this going to be used for competition, defense, or as an "at work" kind of setup?

I'm actually building a concept upper at this very moment that's very similar to what you've got. I can IM you the details if you'd like.

It's definately a "think twice and buy once" rig.

Posted: 10/24/2005 2:58:39 PM EDT

[#25]

I'm actually building a concept upper at this very moment that's very similar to what you've got. I can IM you the details if you'd like.

Better yet, just post the details here.

Posted: 10/24/2005 3:16:46 PM EDT

[#26]

I just got a new Noveske Afghan upper myself. Very much like this.

Currently it's an:

LMT upper reciever
LMT Enhanced Bolt (worked for me so far...<crosses fingers>)
Noveske 14.5" Aghan with Vortex
Larue 13.2
LMT Front Sight Post
Troy Rear BUIS

Right now, I don't have the funds for a real scope and am still researching so I have my Aimpoint M2 on an LT cantilever mount. This rifle is more accurate than what the Aimpoint is capable of making me produce. (Did that make sense?) Basically, the limitation on th eupper right now is the Aimpoint.

I have not had a chance to shoot at anything more than 100 yards with yet though.

Nor have I tried quality ammo. I was getting dime sized groups rested at 50 yards with Q3131. I think it is capable of better.

Posted: 10/24/2005 3:21:35 PM EDT

[#27]

Sounds like another nice setup. Just currious, does the rifle feel pretty heavy? How's the balance? I'm sure you'll be able to put it to the test once you get a magnified optic on there. Feel free to post some pics of the rifle and don't forget to update us with a range report once you do get an optic.

Posted: 10/24/2005 3:27:09 PM EDT

[#28]

A Noveske 14.5 in a Larue 13.2 (my Super-Recce) balances pretty good. It gets front heavy if you hang a SF light or 'can off it, though.

Posted: 10/24/2005 3:32:24 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Sounds like another nice setup. Just currious, does the rifle feel pretty heavy? How's the balance? I'm sure you'll be able to put it to the test once you get a magnified optic on there. Feel free to post some pics of the rifle and don't forget to update us with a range report once you do get an optic.

It's not light by any means but balances GREAT. The Noveske profile is pretty heavy.

I'll see if I can get some good pics in a day or so. I'll post them here.

The plan is once I get the scope, is to put a PRI/Troy Front BUIS on there. As well as a dedicated lower with a grip that gives me proper trigger finger placement as well as a match trigger.

The LMT Front BUIS and Aimpoint will go onto a similarly set up upper but with a chrome lined 1:7 barrel.

On an interesting note, I have an M951 I picked up cheap on the way. I'm gonna throw that on there and see how/what it does. I think a suppressor would make it very front heavy but that probably goes with most uppers with suppressors hanging off them.

Posted: 10/24/2005 3:33:03 PM EDT

[#30]

I attended a carbine course with a long rail MRP, 16" barrel, MIAD and M93. Optic was an M68 in LaRue CCO mount.

Thing got heavy fast. I knew it would, but it was what I had. It was probably the nicest non nfa weapon there--the long rail is good for bracing the rifle to shoot from cover, and it was accurate.

Posted: 10/24/2005 3:34:41 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
I attended a carbine course with a long rail MRP, 16" barrel, MIAD and M93. Optic was an M68 in LaRue CCO mount.

Thing got heavy fast. I knew it would, but it was what I had. It was probably the nicest non nfa weapon there--the long rail is good for bracing the rifle to shoot from cover, and it was accurate.

Yah if I had my druthers I'd just have a Noveske 10.5...

Posted: 10/24/2005 3:38:20 PM EDT

[#32]

I hear you man! I want one of them so bad! Cant have them in this state though. Realistically, there is nothing a civilian can't do defensively with a 10.5. A little on the light side for songdogs at a distance, but still....

Posted: 10/24/2005 3:45:37 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
I hear you man! I want one of them so bad! Cant have them in this state though. Realistically, there is nothing a civilian can't do defensively with a 10.5. A little on the light side for songdogs at a distance, but still....

Ya but it'll do! I bet with a little practice and properly set up you could make hits reliably out to 400 with that little 10.5" (Just guessing, waiting for Zak or someone to chime in). Hang a suppressor on it and you've got a 16" barrel effectively. I think it'd be the ultimate AR at least for me.

My upper is going to make a hell of a "Do it all - If TS (ever) HTF" Rifle, but its also gonna be murder on Coyotes.

Posted: 10/24/2005 3:55:49 PM EDT

[#34]

When you lose that much muzzle velocity, the drop and wind drift at 400 yards will drastically increase.

If somebody has MV numbers for 10" barrels with Black Hills 75-77gr (223) and XM193, I can post tables comparing 10" vs 16".

The one guy who shot a 10" (IIRC) POF upper at the WACO 3Gun match lost a lot of points at 300 yards (B27 target).

Posted: 10/24/2005 4:19:07 PM EDT

[#35]

I couldnt find figures for a 10.5, but Terry Farley chrono'd his Colt 11.5 at 2446 fps with .223 TAP. Probably pick up another hundred or more with NATO pressure stuff.

Lots of drop and lots of drift. A shooter with a Noveske 10.5 and cheap training ammo told me that he could make hits on steel sihouettes at 400 meters from a field prone with the short dot.

ETA: Terry claims 2765 fps with XM193.

Posted: 10/24/2005 4:57:26 PM EDT

[#36]

10.5" MRP CQB, elevation 4800 ft, temp 85

1992 WCC M855: 2705 FPS
Hornady 75 gr OTM TAP (5.56 NATO pressure): 2481 FPS

Posted: 10/24/2005 5:00:51 PM EDT

[#37]


_Bullet_           _BC_ _MV_         0     100     200     300     400 | YARDS
16" M855          0.304 3060 >   -2.60    0.00   -1.95   -9.51  -24.03 | drop (inches)
10" M855          0.304 2705 >   -2.60   -0.00   -3.29  -13.91  -33.78 | drop (inches)

16" M855          0.304 3060 >    0.00    0.88    3.70    8.77   16.46 | wind (inches)
10" M855          0.304 2705 >    0.00    1.05    4.42   10.52   19.83 | wind (inches)

Posted: 10/24/2005 5:06:58 PM EDT

[#38]

You could shave a bit of the drop off at 400 by zeroing at 200.

Posted: 10/24/2005 5:16:05 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:

_Bullet_ _BC_ _MV_ 0 100 200 300 400 | YARDS
16" M855 0.304 3060 > -2.60 0.00 -1.95 -9.51 -24.03 | drop (inches)
10" M855 0.304 2705 > -2.60 -0.00 -3.29 -13.91 -33.78 | drop (inches)

16" M855 0.304 3060 > 0.00 0.88 3.70 8.77 16.46 | wind (inches)
10" M855 0.304 2705 > 0.00 1.05 4.42 10.52 19.83 | wind (inches)

That's still not terrible, and this is from a standard rifled barrel. The Noveske Poly 10.5" is pulling a 175-ish FPS boost with M855. I'll have to dig up the exact numbers tomorrow...

Posted: 10/24/2005 5:41:19 PM EDT

[#40]

So it seems that a 10.5" Noveske Barrel could put relatively effective fire out to 400 yards. Maybe not sniper accurate, but accurate enough...

(Sorry about this HUGE thread hijack btw)

Posted: 10/24/2005 6:47:40 PM EDT

[#41]

Have you considered Denny's "Operator" barrel?

linky linky makes you stinky

Posted: 10/24/2005 7:07:13 PM EDT

[#42]

(Sorry about this HUGE thread hijack btw)

No worries. Whats the effective frag range with the Noveske 10.5 using M855?

Posted: 10/24/2005 7:11:10 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
Have you considered Denny's "Operator" barrel?

linky linky makes you stinky

Having seen the Giffmann Group buy go to hell b/c CMMG couldn't get their measurements right, I'm going to wait until I know these are "to spec" before I order one.

I don't think CMMG is doing this one, but I've kinda had it with Group buys for a while.

If these turn out to be as advertised, and I hope they are, then I'll probably buy one. Wish they made a 14.5 Middy.

Posted: 10/25/2005 6:21:05 AM EDT

[#44]

I keep on hearing about the problems from the group buy, but I have assembled an upper on one of those barrels and it runs flawlessly. I hear about accuracy issues, but the current owner can hit our 400 yard gong, 12"x12", consistently with iron sights. I know the gas port is 1/8" off and you are stuck with a free float hand guard, but you can't argue with something that works. If it is stupid and it works, it isn't stupid. I wish I had about 5 more of these barrels. I have people who want duplicate uppers to the the one I built on that so called "bad" barrel.

IDHunt

Posted: 10/25/2005 8:26:52 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
I keep on hearing about the problems from the group buy, but I have assembled an upper on one of those barrels and it runs flawlessly. I hear about accuracy issues, but the current owner can hit our 400 yard gong, 12"x12", consistently with iron sights. I know the gas port is 1/8" off and you are stuck with a free float hand guard, but you can't argue with something that works. If it is stupid and it works, it isn't stupid. I wish I had about 5 more of these barrels. I have people who want duplicate uppers to the the one I built on that so called "bad" barrel.

IDHunt

You got lucky. Two words: Tight Chambers.

Some of these barrels run great, other don't. The fact of the matter is CMMG screwed up royally and did not address it. What was delivered was not what was ordered. I still can't believe members here laid down so quick considering.

Posted: 10/26/2005 3:07:13 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Feel free to post some pics of the rifle and don't forget to update us with a range report once you do get an optic.

Got a hold of a Leupold MR/T that'll have to do until I can get a Nightforce 1-4

More pics: ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=255042&page=1

Posted: 10/26/2005 9:10:06 PM EDT

[#47]

That really is a nice rifle and I'm glad to hear it shoots well so far. Does the front sight cause any problems for the scope? I prefer a fixed front sight for the CQB role of my rifle, but I'm not so sure about distortion when using a magnified optic.

Posted: 10/26/2005 9:34:07 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
That really is a nice rifle and I'm glad to hear it shoots well so far. Does the front sight cause any problems for the scope? I prefer a fixed front sight for the CQB role of my rifle, but I'm not so sure about distortion when using a magnified optic.

There's a little distortion but its at the bottom third/quarter of the reticle.

My plan is to build a dedicated Blaster/CQB weapon and I'll mount the LMT on that and put a PRI flip up on this one, eventually.

Posted: 10/27/2005 4:58:47 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:

_Bullet_ _BC_ _MV_ 0 100 200 300 400 | YARDS
16" M855 0.304 3060 > -2.60 0.00 -1.95 -9.51 -24.03 | drop (inches)
10" M855 0.304 2705 > -2.60 -0.00 -3.29 -13.91 -33.78 | drop (inches)

16" M855 0.304 3060 > 0.00 0.88 3.70 8.77 16.46 | wind (inches)
10" M855 0.304 2705 > 0.00 1.05 4.42 10.52 19.83 | wind (inches)

That's still not terrible, and this is from a standard rifled barrel. The Noveske Poly 10.5" is pulling a 175-ish FPS boost with M855. I'll have to dig up the exact numbers tomorrow...

Where did you get the data that Pac Nor rifling would increase velocity that much? I have seen no evidence of polygonal rifling increasing velocity that much. I have heard increases from ABS barrel lining in the 75 fps range and will have to see that for myself as well. I will have to see any of these velocity increases for myself to believe them. Mike should have my barrel completed around Thanksgiving due to his heart attack and I am NOT anticipating 2700 fps with 75 grain 5.56 TAP like the boosts would suggest I will get from my 11.5" polygonal and over 2750 with suppresor. This means that somehow barrel rifling, linings and suppressors can make a barrel plus suppressor have BETTER velocity than a 16" standard barrel of the same overall length where the last several inches are not even rifled bore. I find that impossible to believe.

Posted: 10/27/2005 5:47:51 AM EDT

[#50]

I've got the ABS barrel, if there is a velocity increase it is too small to have any practical effect. It is pretty easy to clean though.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Considerations for a Mid-Range (Recce-type) Weapon (Page 1 of 2)

AR-15 » Rifles, Uppers, Lowers, Barrels, and more

AR Sponsor:

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us