KevinB's SR-25 EMC...

16" M110 Carbine
Average Muzzle Velocity (of 10 Rounds) in Feet per Second (FPS) in 16” Barrel M110 Carbine:

Ammunition
Un-Suppressed

M118 LR U.S. Army
2475

Lapua 167 gr.
2465

Lapua 170 gr.
2478

Lapua 185 gr.
2265

Subsonic Lapua 200 gr.
1021


Average Muzzle Velocity (of 10 Rounds) in Feet per Second (FPS) in 16” Barrel M110 Carbine:

Suppressed

M118 LR U.S. Army
2476

Lapua 167 gr.
2485

Lapua 170 gr.
2485

Lapua 185 gr.
2282

Subsonic Lapua 200 gr.
1019


Average Muzzle Velocity (of 10 Rounds) in Feet per Second (FPS) in 20" M110 SASS

M118LR
2556

Lapua 167gr
2624

Lapua 170gr
2637

Lapua 185gr
2410

Subsonic Lapua 200gr
1028


Suppressed

M118LR
2561

Lapua 167gr
2545

Lapua 170gr
2610

Lapua 185gr
2390

Subsonic Lapua 200gr
1025
 
Thats pretty interesting I thought there would have been a larger disparity between the two lengths. Its within about ~100 - 150fps of 7.62x39 but obviously with a bigger bullet. .5 MOA @ 800m is pretty impressive, now I want one...

Good thing we has such a limited variety of firearms available in Canada, I'd be the only working homeless guy in the country with 4 gun safes.

Its just too bad the SR25 is one of those #### DI guns, piston would be 11 better. :D
 
KevinB said:
16" M110 Carbine
Average Muzzle Velocity (of 10 Rounds) in Feet per Second (FPS) in 16” Barrel M110 Carbine:

Ammunition
Un-Suppressed

M118 LR U.S. Army
2475

Lapua 167 gr.
2465

Lapua 170 gr.
2478

Lapua 185 gr.
2265

Subsonic Lapua 200 gr.
1021


Average Muzzle Velocity (of 10 Rounds) in Feet per Second (FPS) in 16” Barrel M110 Carbine:

Suppressed

M118 LR U.S. Army
2476

Lapua 167 gr.
2485

Lapua 170 gr.
2485

Lapua 185 gr.
2282

Subsonic Lapua 200 gr.
1019


Average Muzzle Velocity (of 10 Rounds) in Feet per Second (FPS) in 20" M110 SASS

M118LR
2556

Lapua 167gr
2624

Lapua 170gr
2637

Lapua 185gr
2410

Subsonic Lapua 200gr
1028


Suppressed

M118LR
2561

Lapua 167gr
2545

Lapua 170gr
2610

Lapua 185gr
2390

Subsonic Lapua 200gr
1025
Click to expand...

Awesome, they've reinvented a less capable .303 British :sniper:
 
Kevin,
I would greatly appreciate you explaining why you chose a 16" barrel for your AR 10.

Those muzzle velocities from your 16"barrel raise some interesting questions.

I've always felt that a 7.62 NATO rifle with a barrel shorter than 18.5", using FULL POWERED 7.62 NATO ammo, has passed below the point of diminishing returns. As in, most of the powder is burned outside the barrel, resulting in more noise, more flash, and less power, in a rifle that is heavier and recoils more, than a rifle designed from the ground up to use other calibers.

Is the extra ?effective? range from the 7.62 NATO cartridge in a 16" barrel worth the extra weight and recoil from the heavier, bulkier AR 10 platform??

Obviously, a 7.62 NATO chambering has GREAT VERSATILITY, if you factor in the many specialised loads available in .308 Win, which allow the use of lighter bullets at higher velocities [ like the Hornady TAP loads ]. Or HEAVIER bullets at lower velocities[ like the 200 GR Lapua sub-sonics ].

BUT,
if the market is military and you are restricted to 7.62 NATO military loads,
as most soldiers would be,
What advantages does the 16" barreled platform provide over a lighter, more compact, lighter recoiling 7.62X39 Russian AR 15/AR47??

OR,
if the market is civilians/Law enforcement,
a 16" barreled AR 15 in .300 Whisper, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, or .458 CORBON?

What exactly is the tactical role for a 16" SHORTY 7.62 NATO AR 10?

Is a 16" barreled 7.62 NATO ??rifle?? an underpowered "BATTLE" rifle, optimised for CQB?

Or is it more of an overpowered "Assault" rifle,
optimised for a long range/DM role?

Or do we need a whole new TACTICAL category to describe it's capabilities?

PS: I will be chopping my 20" R25/AR 10 barrel soon, and was going to set the chop saw to 18.75" [ like I usually do for all my 7.62 NATO chambered rifles ]
but if you can convince me that 16" is better,
I can easily adjust the saw.

thanks in advance,
LAZ 1
[;{)
 
Lets just say 90% of your commentary above is incorrect ;)

16" with M118LR is still supersonic at 900m

Its a jack of all trades gun, not the ideal CQB gun, but usable, not the ideal sniper gun but usable.

If you read my Battle Rifle history thread a few months ago I went over most of the rationale.

Basically Special Mission Units used to use MP-5's, then went on to M4A1's, and in Afghan the mission can be short to long and thus LAV when in his previous position came up with the "Battle Rifle" concept.
 
KevinB said:
in Afghan the mission can be short to long and thus LAV when in his previous position came up with the "Battle Rifle" concept.
Click to expand...

He,He...that's pretty funny. I read an article by Chuck Taylor, that went into print in the early 80's, where he "built" what he called an "all purpose rifle". He wanted a rifle that would be easy enough to carry, and that would be useful in short and "long" engagements...

What rifle was it?

A Galil in 308. This particular model had it barrel length cut down to just over 16 inches, and a few other mods done. Of course it didn't have provisions for optics, given the time frame in which it was written. Don't want to take anything away from LAV but I don't think he is the first person to come up with this concept.
 
Last edited:
KevinB said:
Lets just say 90% of your commentary above is incorrect ;)

16" with M118LR is still supersonic at 900m

Its a jack of all trades gun, not the ideal CQB gun, but usable, not the ideal sniper gun but usable.

If you read my Battle Rifle history thread a few months ago I went over most of the rationale.

Basically Special Mission Units used to use MP-5's, then went on to M4A1's, and in Afghan the mission can be short to long and thus LAV when in his previous position came up with the "Battle Rifle" concept.
Click to expand...


:owned:

Too funny KevinB :cool:
 
Lazerus2000 said:
...I will be chopping my 20" R25/AR 10 barrel soon, and was going to set the chop saw to 18.75" [ like I usually do for all my 7.62 NATO chambered rifles ]
but if you can convince me that 16" is better,
I can easily adjust the saw.

thanks in advance,
LAZ 1
[;{)
Click to expand...

Sometimes longer is better.

See CC s. 84(1)
 
So Kevin are you saying that the 5.56 is an inferior round in the modern battlefield? Muhahaha.

I get it, its a pretty slick setup you guys have put together, The accuracy is outstanding.
 
KevinB said:
Chuck Taylor's ranting
Click to expand...

LOL.:D

Yeah, I read your history thread before and I understand that LAV was in a position to do something about it.

I just wanted to note that this concept has been around for many, many years.

Why people rag on Chuck Taylor is mystifying to me. Sure, some of his concepts mat be a lot out dated, but he was a true pioneer in many of the training disciplines. In some respects he paved the way for guys like LAV and Ken Hackathorn. The former having written many articles in Taylors old SWAT publication.
 
Ken was doing his thing at the same time (and somewhat before) Chuck T.
Ken however was a much better silent professional that Chuck. Unlike Chuck, Ken actually times drills (concept eh!) with a shot timer, rather than someone with a stop watch or worse a watch.

Ken was involved in the shooting program when 1 SFOD-D stood up. LAV grew up under Ken Hackathorn so all credit goes to Ken for that, including getting him to re-join SF after he got out and try for selection to Delta.
 
KevinB thanks for sharing your knowledge with us. And I really hope some of the people you mention, and including you, write some books about the battle rifle's evolution and the tactics used. Without of course giving out too much tactical information.

Some books about their OP's would sell very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom