It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:29 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:11 pm 
Offline
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:12 pm
Posts: 18374
Location: Chicago, IL
So, I didn't know too much about the Mk.12/SPR, other than seeing DPMS' version in their catalog on my shitter.

(Edited, poor judgment on my part. Sorry, guys.)

I am interested in two general topics:

1. The actual Mk.12/SPR weapon system, as used by the US Navy etc.
2. The concept of an SPR type weapon system as an option for a civilian defensive weapon.

My understanding of 1. is the above linked thread, plus the Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... pose_Rifle

My understanding of 2. is limited to the general idea of an 18" barrel, semi-automatic, 5.56mm AR-15, fitted with a magnifying optic, bipod, free-float tube, and collapsible carbine stock. Obviously the closer 2. is to 1., the fewer will contest it being called an SPR.

More infos please?


Last edited by Jeriah on Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:42 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 9:33 pm 
Offline
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:12 pm
Posts: 18374
Location: Chicago, IL
Also, is this setup a fucking joke? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SPR-NVG.jpg

Really? A night-vision scope piggybacked on top of a telescope which itself appears to have an NVD behind it AND is looking through an EOTech? Really? (Not really, right?)

_________________
Image


Last edited by Jeriah on Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 20, 2009 10:13 pm 
Offline
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 12:31 am
Posts: 1537
Location: Delaware
Im not even sure what my one rifle should be called ( DMR/SPRish )

Image

I cant answer question 1 .

Question 2 Is this a PAWS defensive use or an every day home defense?

I can only see its use defensivly as a look outs weapon. I can hit the target farther out and more accuratly with this then i can with a standard AR carbine with stock sights.


As far as the other mega scope rifle i have no idea.

Wish i was more help.

_________________
I fly the flag of black and red, at which sight fills you with dread. For you know i come with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:55 am 
Offline
* * * *

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:21 pm
Posts: 919
Location: Seattle, WA
I like the SPR weapon system. Some weapons builders note that a few of the SPR's specs might be considered to be outdated. In the field however, SPR/Recce style weapon systems are frequently modified by end users to suit their needs, check out M4carbine and Lightfighters to get rare images of these weapons systems taken by their users. I personally became interested in the SPR after reading about it in Marcus Luttrell's book "Lone Survivor" and he used this weapon system to great success despite having to jump off a mountain thrice, and getting blown off the mountain by a RPG. Matt Axelson was rumored to have run a mini-red dot on the SPR at the 1 o clock position (ala, how 3-gunners and gun gamers run secondary optics with the magnified optics) and this aided significantly in their engagement. You can see pictures of the SEAL's actual MK12 circa 2005 at MattAxelson.com

Image

This is deceased Navy SEAL Matt Axelson, he perished in Operation Redwing in 2005. This picture is from that time frame.

The SPR was conceived by a AMU officer, but the program/concept was taken over by the Crane Naval Surface Warfare center and squeezed into the "Recce rifle" requirement asked for by the SEAL teams. As a "recce" rifle, the SPR failed. It's too heavy/accuracy oriented, and the Recce rifle concept is now its own animal. While the SPR didn't satisfy the SEALs needs for a Recce rifle, it has had lots of success in its own right on the battlefield as evidenced by its popularity with Army SF, USN SEALs, and it was recently adapted en masse by the USMC (early 2009), killing off the Marine's own SDM-R. Standard Army Infantry units have also been issued this rifle en masse according to veterans on the internet, but there is no confirmation beyond what is posted.

The SPR originally used a carbon fiber free float tube from PRI, ARMS scope rings, etc. etc. The earliest SPR models were a bit more complex and heavy then newest Mod 1 models. The biggest reason why the Mod 0 was ditched though... was because the PRI fore-end started fraying in the field due to tough military conditions. The Mod 1 uses a more traditional KAC aluminum foreend, and ditches the un-necessary rail riser found on the Mod 0, making it simpler and and lighter. The Crane model SPRs are built by an outside contractor... and this contractor happens to be the very retired AMU officer who conceived of the concept!

Steve from ADCO is a huge SPR fan and got to go see this very contractor (http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b ... 0&t=143864)

What makes a SPR-ish rifle is

1. The suppressor/muzzle brake combo. The OPS INC 12th model can is reflex suppressor that is most famous for NOT influencing suppressor shift at all. It mounts to a muzzle brake (but there are flash hider versions available) and friction locks onto a collar on the barrel. The collar is held in place by a set screw and on a shoulder on the barrel.

The OPS can is notable in that it doesn't affect zero (same POI suppressed/unsuppressed), the core is fully welded, and the design is conducive to non catastrophic failure in case of a baffle strike

http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13648

2. The 18" barrel. The real deal is a Douglas Blank that's chambered in a proprietary AMU chamber (no public specs) by Compass Lake Engineering, and turned by a famous barrel builder. The word is, he doesn't like publicity, so i won't mention his name but it won't take much digging to get it.

Also, one thing to consider is that the military 1/7 twist is not the ideal twist rate for 77 gr SMKs used in the Mk 262 Mod 0/Mod1, and in civilian competition catridges. 1/7:7 or 1/8 twist is the ideal twist rate for accuracy, a fact noted by many in the competition and military circles (Master SGT/Delta veteran Kyle Lamb of VTAC in "Green Eyes Black Rifles" for one). Personally, I decided to go with 1/8, so i'd have a larger spectrum of projectiles to work with.

3. The furniture. Strict clones of the Mod 0/Mod 1 cost A LOT. You can save a lot of money by using more commonly available rails (Daniel Defense? Larue?) and backup iron sights etc. Stock vary between the A1 stock and LMT SOPMOD.

4. Optics. Leupold Mk 4 with M2 (USMC) or M3 turrets (Army). Nighforce NXS 2-10X (USN SEALs)

If you want to build a SPR-ish rifle, the only thing you need is a quality SPR barrel and equivalent furniture/optics.

Compass Lake Engineering makes SPR barrels for public civilian sale... but they don't give you the secret squirrel AMU chamber lol. White Oak Armament, Noveske, Krieger make SPR barrels as well. Noveske/Krieger are at $500, WOA is at ~$260, and CLE is at $330. Generally, it's the shooter not the rifle that holds back accuracy. The Krieger is a hand lapped barrel made by one of the most famous precision barrel makers in the world. Kinda overkill, lol.

With the CLE barrel and a $125 scope that maxes at 7X, I've been able to deliver .5 MOA 5 round groups (firing Federal Gold Medal Match 77 gr SMKs). With statistically significant 10 round groups, i'm sure i'd be getting more around .75 MOA... which is just fine for this type of rifle. The original Crane specs call for 1.25 MOA, for example.

My own SPR-ish lacks a high end scope, and the OPS-Inc 12th model. I'm just sharing my M4-2000 between my primary and SPR for now, class 3 is spendy. I however, did add this item: (http://www.danieldefense.com/?page=shop ... uct_id=113) to assist with closer range targets. I will be adding a C-more STS sight thanks to a buddy who is a sponsored competition shooter, hehe.

Image

The makers of the SPR are generally kind of secretive, but if you ask the right people they can guide you the right way.

Denny @ Denny's Guns/Global Tactical, Steve @ ADCO Firearms, and Wes @ MSTN are pretty much the biggest SPR fans and experts in the world. Except for of course, the retired AMU Colonel who conceived and builds the SPR, but they all know him personally.


Last edited by gordon_freeman on Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:05 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:30 am 
Offline
* * * * *

Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:27 am
Posts: 9308
Location: Seattle, WA
Damit... Now I am thinking I am not going to get a 20", I will just build a SPR instead. I need to find a new hobby

_________________
Thanks Anianna!
Image

12_Gauge_Chimp wrote:
I say when Wee Drop visits the US, we make her ride a goat. You know, like those little monkey cowboys they have at some rodeos. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:03 am 
Offline
ZS Member
ZS Member

Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 1:00 pm
Posts: 1794
Location: Indiana, USA
To me an SPR, which originally meant Special Purpose Receiver but has become Special Purpose Rifle, can be translated to any number of configurations, there is no single set version. The one defining characteristic would be accuracy however, these are made for long range accuracy above all. I consider my suppressed 300 Whisper to be one type of SPR made for quiet short problem solutions. It is capably of sub MOA accuracy and is very effective out to 300 yards with a 200 grain subsonic load. Currently Dad and I building up a heavy barrel 5.56 SPR Starting with a Colt lower. It will have a Williams Trigger Specialties set trigger, either 1 in 7 or 1 in 8 20 inch barrel, upper will likely be a TKS Engineering milled upper, as you can tell this will not be a lightweight build. It will not have a quad rail, triple rail, or even single rail fore end, only thing that will ever be attached to it will be a bipod. Flashlights don't help much at 700 yards. It will be free floating however, We are currently debating setting up for a suppressor or simply a flash suppressor/comp. It will not be a piston gun.

This is our winter project...one of them at least.

The Novenske rifle looks to be a well made and thought out piece of gear despite the cheese grater fore end. The Vltor VIS 12" monolithic upper is the way to go if you need all the rails tho I would be more likely to use one of their carbine length models to build up a shorter, lighter rifle where the rails would be needed.

_________________
"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend." -- J.R.R.Tolkien

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:25 am 
Offline
* * * * *
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 12:56 pm
Posts: 4043
Location: Central Ohio
Outside of the desire to build an exact clone of a rifle some in the military use, this just seems to be a DMR.

Outside of secret squirrel specs, it's just an accurate rifle with a good scope to engage targets at longer range.

I don't see anything that is significantly amazing or new about the SPR concept.

_________________
WWSD?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:04 am 
Offline
ZS Donor
ZS Donor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:00 pm
Posts: 2653
Location: Indiana's Southern Coast
I don't know a ton about rifle specs, so bear with me.

What niche is this rifle filling that existing 'sniper' type rifles do not? I'm trying to see the point in what is (it appears to me) a 5.56 mm sniper rifle when everything I've read seems to say that larger rounds (7.62 or larger) have ballistics, range, and hitting power that would make them a more appropriate choice. Add to the fact that there are already a number of semiautomatic sniper type rifles in service (isn't the USMC DMR a tricked out M14?), and I don't really get it.

There must be some reason or the SEALs wouldn't have gotten one of these made, but it escapes me.

_________________
Holmes: "You have arms, I suppose?
Watson: "Yes, I thought it as well to take them."
Holmes: "Most certainly! Keep your revolver near you night and day, and never relax your precautions..."

- The Hound of the Baskervilles


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:26 am 
Offline
ZS Moderator
ZS Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:18 pm
Posts: 11401
Location: central tx
Beyond the scope, and having a 18" barrel rather than a 20", how is this different than a rifle set up for Service Rifle matches?

_________________
Image

Quote:
Don't confuse a belligerent and aggressive attitude with the strength, training, and conditioning needed to prevail in a fight. How do you know you have the Will To Win, if you don't even have the will to train?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:42 am 
Offline
ZS Global Moderator
ZS Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:31 pm
Posts: 6075
Location: St Louis
Is it possible that the SPR and DMR terms have become gernericized, like Kleenex? Yes, there is only one specific way a true military SPR is set up, but in the civilian world the term seems to be increasingly used to describe a less specific configuration. It's all in the evolution of language. Same as the way the term M-4 is used to describe rifles that aren't actual military issue M-4 rifles. They are simply a rifle that describes a configuration, even if that configuration doesn't match 100%.

_________________
Angry Peasants, musings on guns and the state of our world

Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes you nothing. It was here first.
- Mark Twain
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:16 am 
Offline
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:12 pm
Posts: 18374
Location: Chicago, IL
PistolPete wrote:
Is it possible that the SPR and DMR terms have become gernericized, like Kleenex? Yes, there is only one specific way a true military SPR is set up, but in the civilian world the term seems to be increasingly used to describe a less specific configuration. It's all in the evolution of language. Same as the way the term M-4 is used to describe rifles that aren't actual military issue M-4 rifles. They are simply a rifle that describes a configuration, even if that configuration doesn't match 100%.


Pete,

In common usage, you are certainly correct. Just as many manufacturers call their 16" carbine with M4 profile barrel, detachable carry handle, and 6-position stock an "M4," the same is true with the Mk.12/SPR. Noveske calls theirs an SPR, and DPMS calls theirs a Mk.12. People so easily forget that at one time, even the term "AR-15" once referred to a specific make and model!

Some could argue that the only civilian-available weapon you can call an M4 would be a Colt 6920 (I think that's the one), which is basically a military M4 in 90% of its parts, just a 16" barrel instead of 14.5", and semi-auto only. But even then it could be argued that it isn't REALLY an M4. And on the other hand, one could argue that if you say "look at my M4," everyone knows what you mean, even if it's a Bushmaster etc. (You remember my Bushmaster that you helped me sight in? I couldn't call that an M4 with a straight face: fixed carry handle, heavy barrel, ban-era, etc.)

I think this is why a lot of people refer to any civilian M4-type carbine as an "M4gery," and is why gordon_freeman refers to the civilian versions of the SPR as "SPR-ish" rifles. To distinguish between the real deal and the emulations. (I wouldn't even call my Bushie an M4gery, for the above reasons.)

-J.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:41 am 
Offline
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:12 pm
Posts: 18374
Location: Chicago, IL
DannusMaximus wrote:
I don't know a ton about rifle specs, so bear with me.

What niche is this rifle filling that existing 'sniper' type rifles do not? I'm trying to see the point in what is (it appears to me) a 5.56 mm sniper rifle when everything I've read seems to say that larger rounds (7.62 or larger) have ballistics, range, and hitting power that would make them a more appropriate choice. Add to the fact that there are already a number of semiautomatic sniper type rifles in service (isn't the USMC DMR a tricked out M14?), and I don't really get it.

There must be some reason or the SEALs wouldn't have gotten one of these made, but it escapes me.


I can only say here what my belief is, and I freely admit, it isn't a very educated belief. I started this thread to do me some learnin! That being said, I believe that the idea for the SPR is as something that takes the best attributes from a carbine, a DMR, and a sniper's rifle:

1. Telescoping stock from a carbine (or fixed stock if preferred)
2. Barrel length of 18" intermediary between 14.5" carbine barrel and 20" rifle barrel.
3. High-powered optic as used on a sniper's rifle, as opposed to the DMR's ACOG (USMC DMR)
4. Caliber and ammunition commonality with carbine, rifle, and DMR, not 7.62mm sniper's rifle

The idea here, I think, is to create a dedicated precision weapon, intended to be more accurate than a carbine or even a DMR, but without the extreme (1,000 meter plus) range of a true sniper's rifle. By sacrificing the farther end of the range spectrum (by using 5.56mm instead of 7.62mm) the system is lighter than a true sniper's rifle, and is therefore more suitable to a highly mobile shooter like a SEAL, as opposed to a guy creepy-crawling along all day in a ghillie suit to make a mile-long kill.

I could be wrong about this but that's the best I can come up with.

Paladin1 wrote:
Outside of the desire to build an exact clone of a rifle some in the military use, this just seems to be a DMR.

Outside of secret squirrel specs, it's just an accurate rifle with a good scope to engage targets at longer range.

I don't see anything that is significantly amazing or new about the SPR concept.


Just like all the M4gerys out there are basically an emulation of a military system, yes, I agree with you. The thing that always makes me chuckle is the M203 mounting step in the M4 barrel. Come on, really? You're going to mount a grenade launcher on your carbine? So I think that the SPR as a civilian rifle is partly derived from a similar desire: to be able to shoot something like the high-speed guys use.

However, all the same practical assets I mentioned above, do translate to it being a good, practical rifle for the civilian (in theory). In fact, it comes very close to the concept of a "sniper's carbine," which many Internet commandos build, post pics of, and maybe occasionally shoot. :lol:

At worst, it's a failed attempt at a "best of both worlds" solution, putting expensive glass on a somewhat short-barreled carbine with a telestock, thinking you're playing Navy SEAL but in reality just making your short, inaccurate carbine slow and heavy as well. But at best, it's a well thought-out compromise, making the most of various systems as a well-integrated whole, fulfilling a shooter's personal needs. If you're good with an M4gery with an ACOG, but want a bit more precision, at the expense of more weight, the SPR may be for you.

phil_in_cs wrote:
Beyond the scope, and having a 18" barrel rather than a 20", how is this different than a rifle set up for Service Rifle matches?


The scope and 18" barrel are the most obvious traits of the SPR. I don't know how people set up their rifles for Service Rifle matches, but if they're somewhat short precision rifles, they may be pretty close to an SPR.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:56 am 
Offline
* *

Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:27 am
Posts: 125
I am probably going to get slammed for asking this question..I hope I start no more controversy, but here it goes..

Are rifles set up in this configuration an effort to build a "Self loading Scout Rifle" of sorts..

I guess is it an effort to take what has been learned by Col. Cooper's Scout rifle concept and apply it to the M16 Family of Rifles?

Dtrain

I am not picking on it at all. I say if you like it and want to pay for it Go for It..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:05 am 
Offline
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:12 pm
Posts: 18374
Location: Chicago, IL
Dtrain wrote:
I am probably going to get slammed for asking this question..I hope I start no more controversy, but here it goes..

Are rifles set up in this configuration an effort to build a "Self loading Scout Rifle" of sorts..

I guess is it an effort to take what has been learned by Col. Cooper's Scout rifle concept and apply it to the M16 Family of Rifles?

Dtrain

I am not picking on it at all. I say if you like it and want to pay for it Go for It..


Good question, but I think the answer is no. However, the SEALs' request for a "recon rifle" or "recce rifle" may have been intended more along these lines.

If I understand this right, Cooper wanted a light, fast, .308 bolt action with an intermediate eye relief optic. The whole idea was for it to be light to carry, fast to put into action, and hard-hitting.

The SEALs wanted a recon rifle to be basically a fast and light version of the sniper's rifle, and semi-auto so they could contribute to volume of fire when needed.

The SPR is, if I understand it, too heavy to be what the SEALs wanted in a recon rifle.

For a scout rifle, it's too heavy, fires a small round, and has a dedicated high-magnification optic. Not what Cooper had in mind at all.

I think if you want to get the spirit of Cooper's scout concept into an AR, it would basically be a carbine with an ACOG on it, and no other shit because he wanted it LIGHT. Of course, he'd probably want it in something other than 5.56mm, maybe .50 Beowulf, or .50 Bushmaster, or .458 SOCOM, 6.8mmSPC, or what have you.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:30 am 
Offline
ZS Moderator
ZS Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 4:18 pm
Posts: 11401
Location: central tx
Jeriah wrote:
phil_in_cs wrote:
Beyond the scope, and having a 18" barrel rather than a 20", how is this different than a rifle set up for Service Rifle matches?


The scope and 18" barrel are the most obvious traits of the SPR. I don't know how people set up their rifles for Service Rifle matches, but if they're somewhat short precision rifles, they may be pretty close to an SPR.


The 9 ring is 18" at 600 yards, so that's 3MOA. I know lots of folks that can put 20 rounds into that, with iron sights, without a rest or bipod. A Rock River National Match can do that out of the box (assuming its used by a quality rifleman, of course). I'm nowhere near that good, and I can average a 9 depending on the winds.
Top shooters can keep almost all the shots in the 10 ring, which is 12" at 600, or 2MOA. Again, iron sights no rest/bipod.

The AR platform is capable of more accuracy than almost anyone that fires it, even in a 16" version.

_________________
Image

Quote:
Don't confuse a belligerent and aggressive attitude with the strength, training, and conditioning needed to prevail in a fight. How do you know you have the Will To Win, if you don't even have the will to train?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:32 am 
Offline
* *

Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 11:27 am
Posts: 125
It sounds like the Seals wnated a carbine that would still give them a bit of reach while on Patrol but still compact enough for QCB in a building if the opportunity came up..Recce Rifel would be a good name then since on never knows what they may find while doing such an activity..I think it's neat..The M16 has come a long way since my time in the Service..

Dtrain


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:08 am 
Offline
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:12 pm
Posts: 18374
Location: Chicago, IL
Dtrain wrote:
It sounds like the Seals wnated a carbine that would still give them a bit of reach while on Patrol but still compact enough for QCB in a building if the opportunity came up..Recce Rifel would be a good name then since on never knows what they may find while doing such an activity..I think it's neat..The M16 has come a long way since my time in the Service..

Dtrain


Dtrain,

From what I understand, what you have described is more or less correct re: the Recon Rifle or Recce Rifle; they wanted reach and precision but still compact enough for CQB if needed. However, it should be noted that the SPR/Mk.12 is a separate system, larger, heavier, and more precision-oriented than the Recon/Recce.

The Recon/Recce was supposedly a 16" carbine, as opposed to the 18" SPR. There may have been other differences as far as chamber, trigger, fore-end, etc. But, all really know is what I read on the Wiki. :oops:

-J.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:16 pm 
Offline
* *
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:00 pm
Posts: 112
These two threads may be helpful:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b ... 4&t=141410

You're going to have to sift through this but there are some really good info posts between the pictures:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b ... 303&page=1


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:51 pm 
Offline
* * * *

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:21 pm
Posts: 919
Location: Seattle, WA
The SPR makes more sense for civilian use than a 14.5"/16" M4gery in my opinion, but that of course is influenced by my perception of what the average civilian does with their semi-auto rifle.

In my mind, the average civvy goes out blasting/bumpfiring in the woods once a year or so, and then all the other times the rifle comes out it's only being shot off a bench at a fudd oriented range... and varminting where available seems to be quite popular. A SPR-ish rifle would suit these needs quite well. My perception is based off 90% of the "Post your ARs in Action!" threads i see online, hahaha.

The SPR makes a good compromise as a gamer gun (especially with a secondary optic), traditional precision oriented rifle, and is light enough to run and gun with. I'm looking forward to trying out my SPR at a Practical Rifle match next month.

As for why this rifle even exists, as Dannus asks, can be explained by its name. "Special Purpose Rifle". While this rifle is now being used by the Marines in a squad designated marksman role in a large scale (feature prominently in recent pictures from AFG), it was conceived for special operations use, where SF folk would need precision, but not want to tote around actual sniper rifles of considerable size/weight... and might also need to engage large numbers of hostiles at close range. The AMU chamber was reportedly designed for both reliability under full auto firing and precision. The Noveske chamber has the same design goals.

Just another tool in the tool box. I'd prefer a 14.5" carbine for general purpose use and everyday toting around, but a SPR-ish rifle wouldn't be too bad either.

Jeriah wrote:
The Recon/Recce was supposedly a 16" carbine, as opposed to the 18" SPR. There may have been other differences as far as chamber, trigger, fore-end, etc. But, all really know is what I read on the Wiki. :oops:

-J.



Jeriah: if you want to see pictures of actual Recce rifles, look around Lightfighter and M4C. It's not an officially issued service wide item, so the builds vary wildly on operator/units. Noveske SS barrels, Nightforce 1-4X optics, and PRI foreends were used in the last iteration i saw. It basically looked like a 16" SPR.

Wes @ MSTN might have more information for you. If i've learned anything from the high end weapons world, is that a phone call is worth a billion e-mails... and people like to share info IF you don't sound like an idiot.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:14 pm 
Offline
ZS Donor
ZS Donor
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:00 pm
Posts: 2653
Location: Indiana's Southern Coast
So, SPR = ability to engage at close quarters range and the portability (mostly) of a traditional carbine + enhanced optics and hardware to enable precision engagement of targets at longer than traditional carbine ranges but closer than dedicated sniper rifle ranges.

Zat it? If so, how much smarter am I because of this thread?! :wink:

If not, I'm clearly not teachable and I give up... :oops:

_________________
Holmes: "You have arms, I suppose?
Watson: "Yes, I thought it as well to take them."
Holmes: "Most certainly! Keep your revolver near you night and day, and never relax your precautions..."

- The Hound of the Baskervilles


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:04 pm 
Offline
* * * *

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:21 pm
Posts: 919
Location: Seattle, WA
DannusMaximus wrote:
So, SPR = ability to engage at close quarters range and the portability (mostly) of a traditional carbine + enhanced optics and hardware to enable precision engagement of targets at longer than traditional carbine ranges but closer than dedicated sniper rifle ranges.

Zat it? If so, how much smarter am I because of this thread?! :wink:

If not, I'm clearly not teachable and I give up... :oops:


Pretty much. The SPR seeks to be the jack of all trades, but its relative lakc of portability is definitely its weakness. Hence why the Recce rifle concept is alive and well and still being developed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:20 pm 
Offline
ZS Lifetime Member
ZS Lifetime Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 4:12 pm
Posts: 18374
Location: Chicago, IL
gordon_freeman wrote:
DannusMaximus wrote:
So, SPR = ability to engage at close quarters range and the portability (mostly) of a traditional carbine + enhanced optics and hardware to enable precision engagement of targets at longer than traditional carbine ranges but closer than dedicated sniper rifle ranges.

Zat it? If so, how much smarter am I because of this thread?! :wink:

If not, I'm clearly not teachable and I give up... :oops:


Pretty much. The SPR seeks to be the jack of all trades, but its relative lakc of portability is definitely its weakness. Hence why the Recce rifle concept is alive and well and still being developed.


Recce rifle being, in essence, a 16" lightweight SPR?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:04 am 
Offline
*
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 66
Location: CT
My SPR type rifle: The Idea was for a bench shooter mostly. I liked the look and idea of the SPR so i put this together
1:7.7 twist, stainless, 19.7 inches barrel
Daniel Defense FF rail
Leupold Mark 4 MR/T 1.5-5
ImageImage
ImageImage

Having it in 6.5 or 6.8 would probably be a great compromise for the rifle. especially for hunting, I imagine. I dont have any experience with either round, and 5.56 is cheeper.

_________________
Image


Last edited by jppd47 on Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:05 am 
Offline
* * * *

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:21 pm
Posts: 919
Location: Seattle, WA
Jeriah wrote:
gordon_freeman wrote:
DannusMaximus wrote:
So, SPR = ability to engage at close quarters range and the portability (mostly) of a traditional carbine + enhanced optics and hardware to enable precision engagement of targets at longer than traditional carbine ranges but closer than dedicated sniper rifle ranges.

Zat it? If so, how much smarter am I because of this thread?! :wink:

If not, I'm clearly not teachable and I give up... :oops:


Pretty much. The SPR seeks to be the jack of all trades, but its relative lakc of portability is definitely its weakness. Hence why the Recce rifle concept is alive and well and still being developed.


Recce rifle being, in essence, a 16" lightweight SPR?


Yep.

The "recce" rifle is just a loose concept at this point. Army SF, SEALs, PSD companies all have their own variations. The optics, barrel, furniture varies wildly based on unit/operator build... Generally what you see is

-Free floated handguard for obvious reasons. PRI, Larue, KAC, DD.
-16" precision barrel. The usual suspects, Noveske, Douglas blanks turned by quality barrel makers, etc.
-Variable magnification optic. Most are mid range (2-10X) but i've seen a few that use 1-4X optics as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group