Strictly speaking, the SPR is the Recce rifle as interpreted by NSWC Crance and SOCOM.  The SPR basically came about when someone had the idea to ask Crane for a standardized version of the various mods they had been doing at the individual/unit level.  Once Crane got involved, SOCOM (Army) said "Hey, we want some input on that also." and the SPR was the end result.  Since the SPR is actually type classified, unlike the Recce, it is a bit more clear what is or isn't an SPR; but the SPRs all have 18" barrels, rifle length gas, free-floated handguards.  Usually they also have bipods, variable power scopes, and an Ops Inc. 2-port brake/mount.

As far as I can tell, the only criteria for the Recce was a 16" match barrel.  Everything else was pretty much up to individual preference; but the general idea was to give observation teams a compact rifle that could lay down rapid fire if necessary while having a bit more reach/precision than a typical M4.  I also read complaints from SEALs during that time (when Recce's were being used) who were saying that the rifles they used for pre-deployment workup were shot out by the time they actually deployed due to the intense training.  I remember at least one SEAL writing a memo to that effect with the recommendation that each SEAL receive two rifles (one to destroy during workup and one to test briefly and actually fight with).  In that context, I could certainly see where a personal precision 16" upper would come in handy - especially if you wanted better accuracy then you would get from an M4 barrel with 20,000 rounds through it at a high rate of fire.

I see that some of you are rocking ACOGs and others variable optics. What kind of magnification range is sufficient for the variable optics? Is an ACOG a viable option on a Recce style rifle?

My watered down interpretation of the Mk12 and Recce history is below, more detailed versions are on the Mk12 mega thread:
The alternate story I've read on the Mk12/SPR origin is that Army SF wanted a semi-auto to fill the gap left by the M21's being retired. Army couldn't get the SR25 so vendors were approached to build match-grade uppers. Douglas barrels were picked, and PRI's design with 18" barrel, folding FSB, and ARMS #38 sleeve was selected after trying lengths from 18"-22". First test uppers were dropped on M4 lowers, and were well received but had bolt bounce problems. One of the important guys at Crane rescued a bunch of M16A1's that were headed to the shredder and picked the best of the lot. Instead of drop-in uppers, they were able to supply whole systems built off A1 lowers, originally sent with A1 stocks. Somewhere in the mix Knight's match triggers were supplied. The first batch of rifles got to Army SF just before 9/11 and they were with the units that deployed to Afghanistan, and performed well in combat. Along the way the Mk262 ammo had also been created to go with the SPR and was deployed with the rifles in order to meet the Army's accuracy requirements. This sparked interest by other units, and others "bought in" on the Mk12 (maybe where Navy finally acquired some?). Demand led to a shortage in PRI parts, and at some point Knight's was approached whether they had rails on the shelf to fill the need. Hence the Mod 1 appears with the M4 Match long RAS and ARMS High rings, and lo-pro gas block instead of an FSB.

How does the Recce fit in? My understanding is that the Recce effort was totally within the Navy side, and it wasn't Crane "getting the requirement wrong" and compromising that led to the 18" barrel and the Mk12. I think it may be more that Army's SPR was there first, and when Navy officially requested the "Recce" as an official deliverable it was deemed redundant to have the two separate programs. Somewhere along the line, maybe when the Mk12 Mod 1 came along as I don't think I've seen any Mod 0 pics labeled as being in Navy use (I am probably wrong, but that's just me going off what's public knowledge), the Navy guys actually started using the Mk12. I don't think the Recces or individual purchased uppers would have just ghosted overnight when the Mk12 came on the scene, guys probably either replaced them on their own, units did on their own, or guys just picked up available Mk12's and made use of them.

The ultimate cool thing is that the Mk12 and Recce thing came full circle. At some point, an Army unit had Precision Reflex rebuild a bunch of their Mod 0's with 16" Noveske barrels profiled for the Ops Inc suppressors and used the Gen III handguards we know and love. No ARMS sleeve, FSB, etc. The lowers came back with carbine stocks. Basically, the unit ended up with what the Recce originally was, a 16" Match M4 with an intermediate power scope. We now know these here as the "Mod Holland" or "Mod H" after the gentleman that was apparently instrumental in the SPR and Mk12 being born in the first place.

Yeah, my version is just based on posts from Frogman at Tactical Forums detailing his recollections of the program.  He had an interesting series of posts where he talked about how he disliked the SPR and how it was a perversion of the Recce concept and then later on, after he had used it some, a post explaining his change of heart and how he came to love the SPR.  It was good reading; but it was so long ago that it is entirely possible I have misremembered details.

If he was from the Navy side, his perception would certainly be different. The version I posted is based off what Black Rifles 2 has, as well as from guys like PSYWAR01 and LtCol. Lutz from Knight's have mentioned. I think if you look at the timelines, both Army and Navy elements had been building "accurized" M4 uppers and such for quite a while, as examples the SEAL rifles with the KAC MRE rails, "Sawman" Sawyer's short suppressed carbine with what looks like a low power scope, etc. In the Recce case, the focus was on adding a little more accuracy/velocity to an M4 sized package, while the SPR side was more filling in the need for a semi-auto sniper system to complement the M24 since the old M14 pattern was retired. It doesn't seem that the Mk12 evolved from the Recce or vice versa, it seems that the SPR became a Crane/SOCOM "program" first, with an appropriation and type class and everything, and when the Navy wanted their Recce to become an official supported rifle/kit, they were disappointed when someone said "we already have this Mk12 going", brass bought in on it, and the end-users didn't get what they really wanted or felt they needed.

I could see where Frogman and the other HSLD Navy guys would be disappoined that the Mk12 is what was offered to them, as they wanted close to M4 package while the Mk12 with suppressor is like having a 24" varmint AR. But once the Mod 1 rolled out, it seems the Navy guys picked it up and took to liking it for places like Afghanistan. Clear a building or ship with it? Probably leave it at home. Do some overwatch, observation, other stuff requiring a beard, sunglasses, and a steady hand? Mk12.

I think it is.  You can get ACOGs up to 4x and many recce's have variables as low as 4 as the upper end.  I'm all for the ACOGS of any flavor.  Not sure if it's "spec" though.  

Relatively inexpensive when purchased used, lightweight, multiple reticle options, and they look badass. What more could you ask for?











 

I know less than all of you but I'm kind of with him with this perception.  My only experience is I remember sitting in a Barnes and Noble not too long after I got my first AR.  Which was a Govt Colt 20" A2.  Precision shooting was always a thing with me and I saw an article about the SPR in Soldier of Fortune magazine.  My recollection was that it WAS an army thing.  The "SPR" part at least.  And the pics of the rifle pictured had that ARMS free float rails like you mentioned.  That attached to the upper receiver, much like the way the current PRI tubed ones are with space for a flip up sight at the very rear.  The rails looked like the ones I've seen a few people on here that had them , that everyone use to complain about them being heavy in the carbine form.  They're kind of tall and have lots of see through points.  And I think have like a top and bottom that mates together.  But these were longer, because it was a rifle gas system.  

Plus the one pictured had specifically one of them ACE carbine stocks with the foam on the rail and that sort of rectangular end.  

Anyways....  I don't recall the article mentioning anything about the recce specs, and it wasn't until on this site that I started hearing about those.  And there were a few guys building them, like MSTN and I think they might've been for some "units".  Not sure about that though.   That's been shown in this thread I think.  

Anyways.... that's my 3 cents.  I wish I remember what exact month and year that article was and I might even still have that mag, but it's buried under a lot of other ones.  Maybe I'll try to dig it up sometime.

Is the MSTN forum gone?  They were one of the first guys to have "real" Recce rifle barrels and they had a thread in there with pictures of various rifles they had done and quite a bit of good information.  I hope that is archived somewhere.

Honestly, on all of my variables, I end up using the highest magnification it has available about 80% of the time.  The only time it gets dialed down to 1x is when I am shooting fast at 25m or less.  I really like the ACOG on a Recce, particularly a TA11 or TA33, but it is a tiny, tiny bit slower on the near end (<25m), and a little coarse on the far end (>300m).  However, it is just the ticket for 25-300m in a nice flat shooting round like 5.56mm.  With something more rainbowlike (7.62x35 or 7.62x39), it is less useful unless you happen to be using the exact ammo and barrel combination it is calibrated for.

Wes left a number of years ago. I'm sure most of his info can be dug up in the archives.

I wonder if he's still in business. His website has been under construction for a number of years too...

He's active over on snipershide.com. His website is still the worst in the history of the internet. Not sure how you even order a rifle from but apparently it can be done.

He was banned from snipershide post #60. I hope he gets his site up and running, because I really want to try one of his intermediate gas noveske barrels.

He still runs business, I got my Knight's Long RAS from him.

As far as the legit Recce barrels, somewhere in the mix Lilja supplied some. I figure more than MSTN must have built Recce uppers, it was never an organized effort so it seems like it'd be each team or man's prerogative to acquire them.

I was gonna say he posts on snipershide, but I didn't refresh my screen from when I left my laptop open an hour ago, and didn't see the other guys beat me to it.

Wow and Snipers Hide accuses us of being immature. I really like the part of that thread talking about Air Force snipers and USMC SS/ "snipers" not being real marksman. I still have an account there but barely ever visit. Now, onto my Recce:
" />
" />
Ive only had the chance to stretch her legs to 100 yards, im trying to save up for the Magpul DM course over in Eastern WA next spring! Im still working on dialing my shooting in, she is waaaay more accurate than me.

I recently bought a PWS 16.1" DI barrel to use on my Recce build. Opinions on that?

Wes has a Facebook page that I'm sure one could use to get a hold of him. MSTN

Without confusing matters further, when talking about the "NSW Recce" that's conceivably the inspiration for this thread (a lot of people have a lot of different ideas about what does or does not constitute a "recce" and/or whether it's a specific rifle, type of rifle, what the "specs" are that qualify, etc.) from what I have gathered and from my understanding, a good way to think of the "Recce" is that "the" recce is the MK 12 and SPR programs as the KAC MRE equipped SOF M4A1s are to the a Block II SOPMOD configuration M4A1.  

Unsurprisingly, when M16A2 Carbines began seeing wide use (precursors to the M4/M4A1) there were a lot of different people and organizations that went in all sorts of directions trying to figure out a way to build an "accurized shorty."  

Remember, too that this was more or less the same period that the AR15 aftermarket was really getting its start - there were a lot of different "branches" and some dead ends of evolution trying to get to an accurized M4A1 based platform, many of which "coexisted in the wild" for a time before specs became crystalized, projects turned into "programs," etc.  

Even the USMC's SAM-R and the USAMU's SDM-R and 18" Midlength SDM-R can be seen as part of this kind of convergent evolution of accurized M16 FOW platforms.  

The point is, that really trying to make catagorical statements about "we started it" or "we had the idea first" and assuming that all of the many different variations that were out there from the late-90s to the early-2000s "dovetailed" together into what we now recognize as one platform or program or another doesn't really capture, IMHO, what all was going on at the time.  

The SPR/MK 12 program is what comes out of a desire to meet the requirements of an accurized platform as an official SOCOM weapon system, rather than having different units, individuals, and armorers modifying parts, assembling COTS components, etc. to fill what was, more or less, an "across the board" operational need.  As always happens when you make something an "official program," there are certain rules that need to be followed, certain people that need to be consulted - and everyone ends up getting their hands into it, and the result doesn't always make everyone involved or who had a piece of it happy.  

On the other hand - from what I can see, by the time  the term "recce" begins making it into the popular enthusiasts' lexicon, it's referring to an "evolved" version of what was, by then, an already divergent branch of the "accurized M4A1" family tree that had been following its own path since before the SPR, and more or less become "de facto" standardized, in a rough sort of way, simply through a stabilization of the preferences/needs of the users, the armorers, and the supply system/purchasing system - and used rather narrowly by a narrow set of users - as a base line, typically using the Lilja "NSW M4" 16" SS barrel and some form of KAC FF RAS (Short, Medium, Long, MRE) - optics, stocks, et al were, as they always tend to have been - relatively fluid - and often pilfered from other systems already in the supply system.  

~Augee

Holland mockup.







 

I dig it!!!!!!

UTAH! I see black on that gun. Even mocked up dude...

I am disappoint.

ETA Hi-Lux FTW!!!

Solid. I look forward to it being complete. IMO the Holland is the cat's meow from the MK12 family.

Would love to more about the specs on this rifle.  Can anyone elaborate on it?

This has been my thinking too...

RECCE = 16" Barrel, 5.56 cal, carbine or mid gas, max 4x scope and collapsable stock.  

SPR = 18"+ barrel, 5.56 or 7.62 cal, rifle gas, 4x + scope and fixed stock

I did go back and found that I did go sub MOA a few times.  But it's rare with me:

And yeah, that is Winchester White box.  For some reason that 55 grain, 40 round value pack stuff was like AWESOME, and so cheap.


It did feel like a fluke though.  LOL.  Most of the time I'm hovering around 1-1.5 MOA with good ammo, like this:


I should get points for that day because it was when I first got me recce upper and had it on my Colt A2 lower.  That fricking trigger is heavy.  Breaks crisp, but heavy.  The RRA two stage trigger makes it a little easier.


On the other hand, I think a fixed buttstock helps me with accuracy, but a collapsible makes it lighter.  So.....  


One bummer is that upper does NOT like the 69's.  At all.  That's why I didn't take a picture of the group.

Finally got mine out today... 1st time shooting it, and also first time using irons

I was averaging right around 2 MOA after barrel break-in, off of a benchrest... Bipod, no rear rest, using American Eagle 62gr XM855.

I have full confidence that she will be good for consistent sub-MOA accuracy once I get a scope, G trigger and whichever match ammo it likes best!

Haha, rest assured, when everything's trued up, it'll get the business.



 

She sounds like a winner!

Are there any other 1-8x scopes on the market that can do what the Leupy MK8 CQBSS does?

The MK8 illum. is not daylight visible.



An S&B Short Dot 1-8 will meet your needs,  at a price.



 

The H27 reticle is.

It's also $200 more expensive than the S&B.





 

H27 > S&B Short Dot

I spent about a month comparing the two, opted for the Leupy. Do not regret it at all. What edged the Mk8 CQBSS over the S&B Short Dot:
- Elevation/Windage Knobs
- Versatility of the H27-D reticle, especially at 1.1x illuminated
- Glass Image (warm color), though this probably boils down to personal preference

Additionally, when you're dropping that kind of change on a scope, $200 is not/should not be a factor.

I'm just not a fan of the H27 reticle. It's a tad too busy cluttered for my taste and the flashdot of the S&B is excellent.



For a recce and the capabilities Wayfaerer is looing for, I'd save even more and go with an S&B 1.5-6x42 Zenith. And while $200 may not seem like a lot, $1200-$1400 difference sure as shit is.



 

 










 

MK6 1-6 is in that price point but the Illum. may be the deciding factor with that as well.



I don't have a U.S.O. dealer anywhere close but it looks promising.





 

Burris has the XTRII in 1.5-8 and 34mm tube... Hell of a lot cheaper than the mk8 or S&B

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

My MK6 reticle doesn't wash out in bright sunlight.. I'd say it works pretty well as a red dot. Not sure if they vary from one to the next, but I would imagine they shouldn't.

 

Full sun, and white target did not play well on the one I tried.



 

Illumination on the mk8 sucks.
Sopmod family pic.
20140922_165817_1 by tb5252, on Flickr

^^^^sexiest pic I have seen all week.......and I have fresh nudes of the woman on the phone. LOLLLLL

Pics or it didn't happen.

Methinks when all this NFA/41P/EForms shennanigans clear up, you need an NT4 or a SF SOCOM. You'd have Game Over Clone creds at that point!

I normally use an aac n6 on them, but plan to get an m2k in the future.

Little more progress. Pinned SF3P and KAC 300m.







Still haven't decided on an optic yet. A mk4 1.5-5 sounds good, but a TA31 doesn't sound bad.

TA01NSN would be boss as fuck and probably more clone-proper than the Leupold.