AR Sponsor
Official Mk12 Mod0, Mod1, ModH Photo and Discussion Thread (Page 449 of 1226)
|
Originally Posted By dangerdan:
They get chopped up into little bits and pieces Originally Posted By dangerdan:
Originally Posted By BurtSaun1049:
Originally Posted By 18E3V:
"Maybe bubba wreaked his OPS 12th model..." Not likely LOL. We are still running our original cans from the original SPR's on our 'new' Hollands..... I personally have over 10,000 rounds through the one on my work gun, alot of which is on full auto (why you ask, because I can...), and my work can sounds as good if not better than my personal 12th models (I have 2 of my own). The Nt4 is not anywhere near as quiet, and, while would work if need be, there is just no good reason I could see to put one on a MK12 Awesome to hear. I shudder to think of what will happen to all of those Ops cans when all of the Hollands and Mod 1s are redlined  They get chopped up into little bits and pieces I figured. Makes me sick. |
"When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." - Dr. Samuel Johnson
|
Originally Posted By 02Overlander: FWIW, the AEM2 suppresses damn near as well as my 15th (AEM3 equivalent). If I had to pick one or the other, I'd opt for the AEM2 every time. Originally Posted By 02Overlander: Originally Posted By Movistar: Originally Posted By wayfaerer320: Originally Posted By plante74: Originally Posted By AR-Ryan21: Any Mk12s been spotted with an NT4 can? At least with the MK12 clone game, the suppressor is pretty affordable - compared to the Surefires and KACs anyway. Significantly cheaper (yet built just as tough and quieter as well). I kinda want to pick up another AE can I like the AEM5 so much. It's a sweet can. Same. I love mine (the bit I've got to handle and use it) that I've already started looking Into other options with AE. I'm very interested in an AEM3 FWIW, the AEM2 suppresses damn near as well as my 15th (AEM3 equivalent). If I had to pick one or the other, I'd opt for the AEM2 every time. I want to hear what the AEM5 sounds like on an SBR - something like a 12.5" upper. Probably wouldn't be as pleasant as it is on my MK12 upper, but I imagine it'd be decent. |
| When my F1 stamp comes in I'll make a vid of the .30 12th on the 300BLK Holland (10.5") w/ supers, that should give you a good idea of how it would sound. I ran the .30 12th on my Mod1 while waiting for the .22 12th to come home & the performance was similar. I would think SBR performance would also be about the same. |
OEF 2001/2002 | OIF 2003/2004
|
Originally Posted By wayfaerer320:
I want to hear what the AEM5 sounds like on an SBR - something like a 12.5" upper. Probably wouldn't be as pleasant as it is on my MK12 upper, but I imagine it'd be decent. I might just have to make that happen 
Actually, I'll scrounge a clip up of my 12.5" with the AAC. Basically same DB but slightly different tone. I'm thinking the 12.5" becomes a quasi Sawyer rifle, and the Mk18 rail gets a 10.3". Or I sell the Mk18 rail and just do a Block 1 CQBR since I have a KAC rail... |
|
Originally Posted By lancecriminal86:
I might just have to make that happen
Actually, I'll scrounge a clip up of my 12.5" with the AAC. Basically same DB but slightly different tone. I'm thinking the 12.5" becomes a quasi Sawyer rifle, and the Mk18 rail gets a 10.3". Or I sell the Mk18 rail and just do a Block 1 CQBR since I have a KAC rail... Originally Posted By lancecriminal86:
Originally Posted By wayfaerer320:
I want to hear what the AEM5 sounds like on an SBR - something like a 12.5" upper. Probably wouldn't be as pleasant as it is on my MK12 upper, but I imagine it'd be decent. I might just have to make that happen
Actually, I'll scrounge a clip up of my 12.5" with the AAC. Basically same DB but slightly different tone. I'm thinking the 12.5" becomes a quasi Sawyer rifle, and the Mk18 rail gets a 10.3". Or I sell the Mk18 rail and just do a Block 1 CQBR since I have a KAC rail... I had an AEM5 on a 12.5...sounds about the same as the MK12- it's awesome. |
|
Originally Posted By lancecriminal86: I might just have to make that happen Actually, I'll scrounge a clip up of my 12.5" with the AAC. Basically same DB but slightly different tone. I'm thinking the 12.5" becomes a quasi Sawyer rifle, and the Mk18 rail gets a 10.3". Or I sell the Mk18 rail and just do a Block 1 CQBR since I have a KAC rail... Originally Posted By lancecriminal86: Originally Posted By wayfaerer320: I want to hear what the AEM5 sounds like on an SBR - something like a 12.5" upper. Probably wouldn't be as pleasant as it is on my MK12 upper, but I imagine it'd be decent. I might just have to make that happen Actually, I'll scrounge a clip up of my 12.5" with the AAC. Basically same DB but slightly different tone. I'm thinking the 12.5" becomes a quasi Sawyer rifle, and the Mk18 rail gets a 10.3". Or I sell the Mk18 rail and just do a Block 1 CQBR since I have a KAC rail... |
|
Originally Posted By Twitchy:
FYI, I reached out to CS to see if he remembered the rifle specs. He does, but isn't going to share it because the picture was never meant to be put online in the first place. Originally Posted By Twitchy:
Originally Posted By lancecriminal86:
Originally Posted By wayfaerer320:
I want to hear what the AEM5 sounds like on an SBR - something like a 12.5" upper. Probably wouldn't be as pleasant as it is on my MK12 upper, but I imagine it'd be decent. I might just have to make that happen
Actually, I'll scrounge a clip up of my 12.5" with the AAC. Basically same DB but slightly different tone. I'm thinking the 12.5" becomes a quasi Sawyer rifle, and the Mk18 rail gets a 10.3". Or I sell the Mk18 rail and just do a Block 1 CQBR since I have a KAC rail... Who is CS and what pic? Nvm found it. |
|
Originally Posted By Twitchy:
FYI, I reached out to CS to see if he remembered the rifle specs. He does, but isn't going to share it because the picture was never meant to be put online in the first place. Why does that not surprise me... Challenge accepted. |
Life ain't nothin' but Peeps and chugging.
Joined:
Jul 2009
Posts:
2800
EE: 100% (4)
VA, USA
 It moved. |
Originally Posted By HKUSP45C:
There ain't many troubles a man can't fix with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought-six.
There ain't many troubles a man can't fix with seven hundred dollars and a thirty ought-six.
|
Originally Posted By Twitchy:
FYI, I reached out to CS to see if he remembered the rifle specs. He does, but isn't going to share it because the picture was never meant to be put online in the first place. Originally Posted By Twitchy:
Originally Posted By lancecriminal86:
Originally Posted By wayfaerer320:
I want to hear what the AEM5 sounds like on an SBR - something like a 12.5" upper. Probably wouldn't be as pleasant as it is on my MK12 upper, but I imagine it'd be decent. I might just have to make that happen
Actually, I'll scrounge a clip up of my 12.5" with the AAC. Basically same DB but slightly different tone. I'm thinking the 12.5" becomes a quasi Sawyer rifle, and the Mk18 rail gets a 10.3". Or I sell the Mk18 rail and just do a Block 1 CQBR since I have a KAC rail... I don't see how an M4 barrel with a 3rd model and some FF tube would be too crazy to talk about. In any case, a 12.5 w/ AEM5 and a Hogue 12" handguard or something should pretty well match that. Not really going to clone it per-se, but it would be fun to compare a Mk12, a Mod H, and a 12.5" Sawyery rifle for a look at barrel length, weight, and "handiness" in a carbine. |
|
Originally Posted By lancecriminal86:
I don't see how an M4 barrel with a 3rd model and some FF tube would be too crazy to talk about. In any case, a 12.5 w/ AEM5 and a Hogue 12" handguard or something should pretty well match that. Not really going to clone it per-se, but it would be fun to compare a Mk12, a Mod H, and a 12.5" Sawyery rifle for a look at barrel length, weight, and "handiness" in a carbine. Originally Posted By lancecriminal86:
Originally Posted By Twitchy:
Originally Posted By lancecriminal86:
Originally Posted By wayfaerer320:
I want to hear what the AEM5 sounds like on an SBR - something like a 12.5" upper. Probably wouldn't be as pleasant as it is on my MK12 upper, but I imagine it'd be decent. I might just have to make that happen
Actually, I'll scrounge a clip up of my 12.5" with the AAC. Basically same DB but slightly different tone. I'm thinking the 12.5" becomes a quasi Sawyer rifle, and the Mk18 rail gets a 10.3". Or I sell the Mk18 rail and just do a Block 1 CQBR since I have a KAC rail... I don't see how an M4 barrel with a 3rd model and some FF tube would be too crazy to talk about. In any case, a 12.5 w/ AEM5 and a Hogue 12" handguard or something should pretty well match that. Not really going to clone it per-se, but it would be fun to compare a Mk12, a Mod H, and a 12.5" Sawyery rifle for a look at barrel length, weight, and "handiness" in a carbine. It's not too crazy to talk about. It's an antiquated AR based configuration that's well over a decade old. Absolutely no one cares...except for him apparently. If I may quote a certain purple jumpsuit-clad bowler.... "Laaaughable, man". |
Off the record, I love your new bangs, Mrs. Obama
Joined:
Jan 2010
Posts:
4805
EE: 100% (725)
OR, USA
|
I've been killing time on a business trip this week, and knocked out all the episodes of "Battlefield Afghanistan" on Netflix. It follows G Company 2/5 Marines in Afghanistan; pretty decent stuff, and will have you sailing at full mast if you like seeing LOTS of M240B footage, and Abrams knocking shit over.
More to the point of this thread, on several episodes, there's some decent Mod.1 footage on there. Not a lot, but if you need a decent show to kill time, it's worth a look. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2997600/ |
|
Originally Posted By Twitchy:
FYI, I reached out to CS to see if he remembered the rifle specs. He does, but isn't going to share it because the picture was never meant to be put online in the first place. Originally Posted By Twitchy:
Originally Posted By lancecriminal86:
Originally Posted By wayfaerer320:
I want to hear what the AEM5 sounds like on an SBR - something like a 12.5" upper. Probably wouldn't be as pleasant as it is on my MK12 upper, but I imagine it'd be decent. I might just have to make that happen
Actually, I'll scrounge a clip up of my 12.5" with the AAC. Basically same DB but slightly different tone. I'm thinking the 12.5" becomes a quasi Sawyer rifle, and the Mk18 rail gets a 10.3". Or I sell the Mk18 rail and just do a Block 1 CQBR since I have a KAC rail...  Wow, folks can talk about being in DEVGRU but can't go into detail on a pre-GWOT AR . . .
|
"When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." - Dr. Samuel Johnson
|
Originally Posted By BurtSaun1049: Wow, folks can talk about being in DEVGRU but can't go into detail on a pre-GWOT AR . . .Originally Posted By BurtSaun1049: Originally Posted By Twitchy: Originally Posted By lancecriminal86: Originally Posted By wayfaerer320: I want to hear what the AEM5 sounds like on an SBR - something like a 12.5" upper. Probably wouldn't be as pleasant as it is on my MK12 upper, but I imagine it'd be decent. I might just have to make that happen Actually, I'll scrounge a clip up of my 12.5" with the AAC. Basically same DB but slightly different tone. I'm thinking the 12.5" becomes a quasi Sawyer rifle, and the Mk18 rail gets a 10.3". Or I sell the Mk18 rail and just do a Block 1 CQBR since I have a KAC rail... Wow, folks can talk about being in DEVGRU but can't go into detail on a pre-GWOT AR . . .Pretty fk'n silly. The Sawman seems like a pretty cool cat though. But honestly, we don't need him to break that AR down; we have Augee.  |
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1604816_Gentle_Propositions____BOOK_IS_LIVE_ON_AMAZON___.html
|
I am looking at picking up a Leupold 2.5-8x36 Mark 4 MR/T Rifle Scope 112633 w/77gr turret for my mk12 Mod 0 how close will the 77 grain turret be using Black Hills 5.56 OTM ammo or should be looking at something else I know it will not be exact, but is it close enough for shooting coyotes or getting one with the 7.62 dial or stay with one with no bdc THANKS |
|
Originally Posted By tacticalcoyote:
I am looking at picking up a Leupold 2.5-8x36 Mark 4 MR/T Rifle Scope 112633 w/77gr turret for my mk12 Mod 0 how close will the 77 grain turret be using Black Hills 5.56 OTM ammo or should be looking at something else I know it will not be exact, but is it close enough for shooting coyotes or getting one with the 7.62 dial or stay with one with no bdc THANKS The TS30A2 you are looking at was turreted for Mk262, so really BH 556 77gr, CBC, RazorCore, or other hot 77gr loads should be dead on. Obviously some might have a wee bit less velocity, but I'm sure you'd be able to adjust for minimal differences in elevation. |
I have a Mod1 with a Douglas barrel and recently wanted to put together a “budget” (if there is such a thing in the MK12 world) build Mod0 upper. I had a scope, ARMS rear sight, rings, brake, collar, BCG and upper receiver. I needed to get a barrel, FF tube, rail and flip up front sight. I saw that Ballistic Advantage had SPR contour barrels for a little over 200 bucks. Figured I could try one and if it didn’t work out sell it for a minor loss and get another Douglas.
I got the Mod0 together yesterday and got out to the range today to see what it could do. After getting the scope zeroed at 100 yards I shot several 5 groups using PPU 75gr match ammo. I was shooting prone using the bipod for support. The wet spots on the shooting mat are sweat, it is hot as hell in FL. 
I then switched uppers (and ran out of shoot and see targets) and fired the 5 shot groups using the Mod1 with the Douglas barrel. The only variables here were the uppers and the fact I had been out in the sun for another half-hour sweating, the same lower and ammo was used. The performance of both barrels was similar as can be seen in the picture below. The high shot on the Mod1 target was the stock slipping on my shirt – it was wet with sweat. 
Another day I am going to go out to 200 yds and use better ammo and will post those results as well. If anyone wants to save a couple hundred bucks on a build I think the BA barrel is good to go. Not getting anything for this review, just was happy with the product and how the build turned out. |
|
Originally Posted By Jax_Guns:
I have a Mod1 with a Douglas barrel and recently wanted to put together a “budget” (if there is such a thing in the MK12 world) build Mod0 upper. I had a scope, ARMS rear sight, rings, brake, collar, BCG and upper receiver. I needed to get a barrel, FF tube, rail and flip up front sight. I saw that Ballistic Advantage had SPR contour barrels for a little over 200 bucks. Figured I could try one and if it didn’t work out sell it for a minor loss and get another Douglas. http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o530/jax_guns/review3_zpswzrpev6l.jpg I got the Mod0 together yesterday and got out to the range today to see what it could do. After getting the scope zeroed at 100 yards I shot several 5 groups using PPU 75gr match ammo. I was shooting prone using the bipod for support. The wet spots on the shooting mat are sweat, it is hot as hell in FL. http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o530/jax_guns/review2_zpsqzwpqzas.jpg I then switched uppers (and ran out of shoot and see targets) and fired the 5 shot groups using the Mod1 with the Douglas barrel. The only variables here were the uppers and the fact I had been out in the sun for another half-hour sweating, the same lower and ammo was used. The performance of both barrels was similar as can be seen in the picture below. The high shot on the Mod1 target was the stock slipping on my shirt – it was wet with sweat. http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o530/jax_guns/review1_zpsnpplwud4.jpg Another day I am going to go out to 200 yds and use better ammo and will post those results as well. If anyone wants to save a couple hundred bucks on a build I think the BA barrel is good to go. Not getting anything for this review, just was happy with the product and how the build turned out. BA has established themself as an outstanding option even compared to the previous defacto WOA budget option. Good shooting and thanks for the report! |
|
The BA 16" holland barrel is the perfect long range AR barrel IMO.
Accurate, light weight with just enough meat on it for accuracy, and shorter than the 18" MK12 spec which inherectly brings weight savings and also slightly more wieldlyness (not a word  )
I've posted this before, but you get the picture of how accurate they are: 
|
Off the record, I love your new bangs, Mrs. Obama
Joined:
Jan 2010
Posts:
4807
EE: 100% (725)
OR, USA
Life ain't nothin' but Peeps and chugging.
Joined:
Jul 2009
Posts:
2801
EE: 100% (4)
VA, USA
|
I thought I’d take some time and offer a photo documentation of sorts for the Mk12 Mod 0 platform. Most folks are very familiar with the specifications on the Mk12 and its lineage, but I felt that a comprehensive photo overview would be helpful. The upper pictured is an original Mk12 Mod 0 upper from one of the first fulfillments to the Special Forces Group that acted as the proponent and testing entity for the SPR concept. My intent in posting this overview is to provide an actual example of an SPR upper to assist in validating the information that has been compiled by numerous credible sources over time, many of which reside here on this forum. The Mk12, more than any other modern platform or small arms program, has been shrouded in misinformation. While the majority of it has been unraveled, this should visually assist the Mk12 enthusiast as well as the new Mk12 clone builder in identifying correct specs and enhancing overall knowledge of the platform.
A few caveats… the original items on this gun are the complete upper receiver and the scope rings. The lower receiver is a NoDak A1 equipped with a SOPMOD stock. While as most folks know this a very common end user modification, for the purpose of this overview its important to note that all Mk12 Mod 0s left Crane NSWC with A1 fixed stocks. Other items not original to the upper are the ARMS #40L rear sight, the bipod, and the optic. The ARMS #40L replaced the standard #40 to assist in eye relief adjustment of the optic. The optic is correct for the model but is not original to this upper. 
Starting from the rear, is the PRI Gas Buster charging handle. This one is anodized either tan or clear, it's hard to tell. The majority of the Gas Busters I've seen on Mod 0s from this era feature this finish. You'll also notice the retained A1 forward assist, as most know is featured on all early to mid Mk12s and were salvaged from the M16A1s used to build the platform on. 
The upper receiver features the Armalite forging mark. The folks that I've spoke with that were involved in the Mk12 program have said that all upper receivers were obtained from either Colt or Armalite. To date all Mk12 Mod 0s I've seen have had either Colt or Armalite markings. 
As most know, all of the original Mk12 Mod 0s were painted tan with Cal-Guard coating. The upper has clearly been rattle canned by its user, but you can see the original Cal-Guard finish on the inside of the dust cover. 
The SWAN Sleeve has been covered thoroughly and accurately in this forum, so no need to exhaustively cover it again. Below are some photos for reference of the correct model and it's markings. 
The handguard is a Gen I, identifiable by the button head cap screws attaching the female portion of the barrel nut assembly to the fiberglass handguard tube. This is a key feature that delineates the Gen I from the Gen II handguard. 
The left side shows the cut of the SWAN Sleeve common to his generation Mod 0 receiver. The two areas void of paint match the mounting bracket on an AN/PEQ-2 perfectly, and the small square is the correct size for the small pressure pad. 
The front sight is the early elevation adjustable model, attached with four set screws. 
Other items to note are the early thread protector and ARMS #22M rings without lever stops. 
So again, most of this info is common knowledge to those in this forum and there are plenty of awesome examples of Mod 0s in this thread. I just wanted to post this short overview to help validate the authenticity of many of the clones here and provide an example for those that may be getting started. Hope it's helpful. |
|
Originally Posted By Glass1: I thought I’d take some time and offer a photo documentation of sorts for the Mk12 Mod 0 platform. Most folks are very familiar with the specifications on the Mk12 and its lineage, but I felt that a comprehensive photo overview would be helpful. The upper pictured is an original Mk12 Mod 0 upper from one of the first fulfillments to the Special Forces Group that acted as the proponent and testing entity for the SPR concept. My intent in posting this overview is to provide an actual example of an SPR upper to assist in validating the information that has been compiled by numerous credible sources over time, many of which reside here on this forum. The Mk12, more than any other modern platform or small arms program, has been shrouded in misinformation. While the majority of it has been unraveled, this should visually assist the Mk12 enthusiast and as well as the new Mk12 clone builder in identifying correct specs and enhancing overall knowledge of the platform. A few caveats… the original items on this gun are the complete upper receiver and the scope rings. The lower receiver is a NoDak A1 equipped with a SOPMOD stock. While as most folks know this a very common end user modification, for the purpose of this overview its important to note that all Mk12 Mod 0s left Crane NSWC with A1 fixed stocks. Other items not original to the upper are the ARMS #40L rear sight, the bipod, and the optic. The ARMS #40L replaced the standard #40 to assist in eye relief adjustment of the optic. The optic is correct for the model but is not original to this upper. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/fullgun.jpg Starting from the rear, is the PRI Gas Buster charging handle. This one is anodized either tan or clear, it's hard to tell. The majority of the Gas Busters I've seen on Mod 0s from this era feature this finish. You'll also notice the retained A1 forward assist, as most know is featured on all early to mid Mk12s and were salvaged from the M16A1s used to build the platform on. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/chargingHandle2.jpg http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/chargingHandle.jpg The upper receiver features the Armalite forging mark. The folks that I've spoke with that were involved in the Mk12 program have said that all upper receivers were obtained from either Colt or Armalite. To date all Mk12 Mod 0s I've seen have had either Colt or Armalite markings. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/upperMarking.jpg As most know, all of the original Mk12 Mod 0s were painted tan with Cal-Guard coating. The upper has clearly been rattle canned by its user, but you can see the original Cal-Guard finish on the inside of the dust cover. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/dustCover.jpg The SWAN Sleeve has been covered thoroughly and accurately in this forum, so no need to exhaustively cover it again. Below are some photos for reference of the correct model and it's markings. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/rightSide.jpg http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/railFront.jpg The handguard is a Gen I, identifiable by the button head cap screws attaching the female portion of the barrel nut assembly to the fiberglass handguard tube. This is a key feature that delineates the Gen I from the Gen II handguard. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/rightSide2.jpg The left side shows the cut of the SWAN Sleeve common to his generation Mod 0 receiver. The two areas void of paint match the mounting bracket on an AN/PEQ-2 perfectly, and the small square is the correct size for the small pressure pad. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/LeftSide.jpg The front sight is the early elevation adjustable model, attached with four set screws. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/frontSightside.jpg http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/frontSightTop.jpg Other items to note are the early thread protector and ARMS #22M rings without lever stops. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/threadProtect.jpg http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ARMS22M.jpg So again, most of this info is common knowledge to those in this forum and there are plenty of awesome examples of Mod 0s in this thread. I just wanted to post this short overview to help validate the authenticity of many of the clones here and provide an example for those that may be getting started. Hope it's helpful. Great post. I'll create a direct link for it in my OP. |
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1604816_Gentle_Propositions____BOOK_IS_LIVE_ON_AMAZON___.html
|
Originally Posted By Glass1:
I thought I’d take some time and offer a photo documentation of sorts for the Mk12 Mod 0 platform. Most folks are very familiar with the specifications on the Mk12 and its lineage, but I felt that a comprehensive photo overview would be helpful. The upper pictured is an original Mk12 Mod 0 upper from one of the first fulfillments to the Special Forces Group that acted as the proponent and testing entity for the SPR concept. My intent in posting this overview is to provide an actual example of an SPR upper to assist in validating the information that has been compiled by numerous credible sources over time, many of which reside here on this forum. The Mk12, more than any other modern platform or small arms program, has been shrouded in misinformation. While the majority of it has been unraveled, this should visually assist the Mk12 enthusiast as well as the new Mk12 clone builder in identifying correct specs and enhancing overall knowledge of the platform. SNIP Wow, probably one of the best posts in this thread. Thank you for the detailed info. Incredible piece of history. |
"When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." - Dr. Samuel Johnson
|
Originally Posted By BurtSaun1049:
Wow, probably one of the best posts in this thread. Thank you for the detailed info. Incredible piece of history. Originally Posted By BurtSaun1049:
Originally Posted By Glass1:
I thought I’d take some time and offer a photo documentation of sorts for the Mk12 Mod 0 platform. Most folks are very familiar with the specifications on the Mk12 and its lineage, but I felt that a comprehensive photo overview would be helpful. The upper pictured is an original Mk12 Mod 0 upper from one of the first fulfillments to the Special Forces Group that acted as the proponent and testing entity for the SPR concept. My intent in posting this overview is to provide an actual example of an SPR upper to assist in validating the information that has been compiled by numerous credible sources over time, many of which reside here on this forum. The Mk12, more than any other modern platform or small arms program, has been shrouded in misinformation. While the majority of it has been unraveled, this should visually assist the Mk12 enthusiast as well as the new Mk12 clone builder in identifying correct specs and enhancing overall knowledge of the platform. SNIP Wow, probably one of the best posts in this thread. Thank you for the detailed info. Incredible piece of history. +1. Fucking love it. |
In the absence of a plan, move toward the sound of gunfire and kill everything.
If it aint a clone or the gun being cloned, it aint shit.
If it aint a clone or the gun being cloned, it aint shit.
|
Secretwheelman, let me ask a few buddies. I'm sure there were a lot of different slings used, but I'll find out if there were any popular options they recall.
Yeah, I'm certain UMSS was an afterthought, adopted at the 11th hour out of necessity, by someone who's job probably hadn't involved carrying a rifle in the field for quite some time. |
|
Originally Posted By Glass1: Secretwheelman, let me ask a few buddies. I'm sure there were a lot of different slings used, but I'll find out if there were any popular options they recall. Yeah, I'm certain UMSS was an afterthought, adopted at the 11th hour out of necessity, by someone who's job probably hadn't involved carrying a rifle in the field for quite some time. And that's the nicest way of calling something a POS that I've ever heard. |
| Glass - forgive my ignorance if you've posted about this or been asked about this before, but I was wondering what your opinion is of the Mod 1 and if you've ever had any trigger time with one in the field? Really just curious if you have any experience with one since you're so familiar with the Mod 0 and Holland variants - how they compare to you personally. |
|
Originally Posted By Mattyvac: The BA 16" holland barrel is the perfect long range AR barrel IMO. Accurate, light weight with just enough meat on it for accuracy, and shorter than the 18" MK12 spec which inherectly brings weight savings and also slightly more wieldlyness (not a word )I've posted this before, but you get the picture of how accurate they are: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-q3KQyBlUbAY/VXSAJgZIRyI/AAAAAAAALJI/tuMx-JdFNhw/s800-Ic42/2015_06_07_13_32_18.jpg ETA. I missed a page. Glass- solid post. Soooolid Annnd an old pic for fun.  |
OEF 10-11
Secretwheelman, that's the first time I've ever been accused of that.  Usually it's quite the contrary.
Good looking Mod1, 8NAK4! wayfearer320, As far as impressions of the Mod 1, bear in mind its all flat range use. While I think the Mod 0 is the sexiest of the two and from purely esthetics it's my favorite, if I had to carry one operationally I'd probably lean towards the Mod 1. Since the only differences are external, there are no performance penalties. The Mod 1 is a little lighter, and a bit more evenly balanced. The aluminum rail system also doesn't suffer the durability issues that some of the Mod 0 handguards did initially. The trade offs are that the SWAN Sleeve, while adding weight provides a solid mounting surface that locks the receiver and handguard together, offering rigidity and making optics mounting a non-issue. Mounting an optic on a Mod 1 without using a cantilevered mount sucks, and bridging the gap is a bad idea even though we see some guys do it. Ultimately, like absolutely everything else, for every advantage there's a disadvantage. There are pros and cons to both platform. I've got all three configurations, the Mod 1 being my first nearly a decade ago. Of the three, the Holland is probably my favorite. It's well balanced and has shed some of the weight compared to the other Mods. It's short and handy enough to do dual role as a carbine when necessary, and the 16" barrel performs every bit suitable enough for the intended role of the platform. Again though, that's just my opinion. A good friend of mine that has plenty of operational experience with the Mk12 thinks he would still prefer the 18" barrel, and although he was issued a Mod 1, his favorite is the Mod 0 - admittedly based mostly on esthetics Another very good friend of mine very much favored the Holland, and his had a respectable amount of souls on it. So taking any design/configuration deficiencies out of the equation (of which all three have some), I think it truly boils down to personal preference.
|
|
Originally Posted By Glass1: Secretwheelman, that's the first time I've ever been accused of that. Usually it's quite the contrary. Good looking Mod1, 8NAK4! wayfearer320, As far as impressions of the Mod 1, bear in mind its all flat range use. While I think the Mod 0 is the sexiest of the two and from purely esthetics it's my favorite, if I had to carry one operationally I'd probably lean towards the Mod 1. Since the only differences are external, there are no performance penalties. The Mod 1 is a little lighter, and a bit more evenly balanced. The aluminum rail system also doesn't suffer the durability issues that some of the Mod 0 handguards did initially. The trade offs are that the SWAN Sleeve, while adding weight provides a solid mounting surface that locks the receiver and handguard together, offering rigidity and making optics mounting a non-issue. Mounting an optic on a Mod 1 without using a cantilevered mount sucks, and bridging the gap is a bad idea even though we see some guys do it. Ultimately, like absolutely everything else, for every advantage there's a disadvantage. There are pros and cons to both platform. I've got all three configurations, the Mod 1 being my first nearly a decade ago. Of the three, the Holland is probably my favorite. It's well balanced and has shed some of the weight compared to the other Mods. It's short and handy enough to do dual role as a carbine when necessary, and the 16" barrel performs every bit suitable enough for the intended role of the platform. Again though, that's just my opinion. A good friend of mine that has plenty of operational experience with the Mk12 thinks he would still prefer the 18" barrel, and although he was issued a Mod 1, his favorite is the Mod 0 - admittedly based mostly on esthetics Another very good friend of mine very much favored the Holland, and his had a respectable amount of souls on it. So taking any design/configuration deficiencies out of the equation (of which all three have some), I think it truly boils down to personal preference.Good stuff - thanks for sharing! |
Great adds Glass. Just what this thread needed. Awesome info. I tried to model my Mod 0 after the early version like you posted: tear drop FA, swan sleeve (not PRI rail) long collar... But I still need some stuff. I need to find an early FSB, and a TRC for my optic.
My biggest influence was this gun which I believe is one of the SF trade in uppers: 
Someday somehow I will own one of those PRI trade in uppers. (Wheelman I'm coming for you  )
|
|
Big thanks to Wes Grant at MSTN. I've been waiting for this from him since late last year. It almost arrived in November but there a was a mix up or some BS. But it has finally arrived, and I didn't pay a BS price either.
This rail is going to go on the lower with the collapsible stock shown on my Mod 0. 
|
|
Originally Posted By Movistar:
Great adds Glass. Just what this thread needed. Awesome info. I tried to model my Mod 0 after the early version like you posted: tear drop FA, swan sleeve (not PRI rail) long collar... But I still need some stuff. I need to find an early FSB, and a TRC for my optic. <a href="http://s902.photobucket.com/user/Fivejackmans/media/7D21177F-F1B5-4BC0-BFEC-B5931318B446_zpszyg8bjmg.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac228/Fivejackmans/7D21177F-F1B5-4BC0-BFEC-B5931318B446_zpszyg8bjmg.jpg</a> My biggest influence was this gun which I believe is one of the SF trade in uppers: <a href="http://s902.photobucket.com/user/Fivejackmans/media/F46F8457-E267-4BE1-A520-213471F7A398_zpsvdqoyzri.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i902.photobucket.com/albums/ac228/Fivejackmans/F46F8457-E267-4BE1-A520-213471F7A398_zpsvdqoyzri.jpg</a> Someday somehow I will own one of those PRI trade in uppers. (Wheelman I'm coming for you )
His is a Gen II like mine, but with the lower vent hole. You're gonna have to go after Glass himself or one of the lucky few that got one. |
|
Originally Posted By lancecriminal86: His is a Gen II like mine, but with the lower vent hole. You're gonna have to go after Glass himself or one of the lucky few that got one. Originally Posted By lancecriminal86: Originally Posted By Movistar: Someday somehow I will own one of those PRI trade in uppers. (Wheelman I'm coming for you )His is a Gen II like mine, but with the lower vent hole. You're gonna have to go after Glass himself or one of the lucky few that got one. And Mov, the only reason I would let it go would be for a PRI turn-in. |
|
Originally Posted By Glass1:
I thought I’d take some time and offer a photo documentation of sorts for the Mk12 Mod 0 platform. Most folks are very familiar with the specifications on the Mk12 and its lineage, but I felt that a comprehensive photo overview would be helpful. The upper pictured is an original Mk12 Mod 0 upper from one of the first fulfillments to the Special Forces Group that acted as the proponent and testing entity for the SPR concept. My intent in posting this overview is to provide an actual example of an SPR upper to assist in validating the information that has been compiled by numerous credible sources over time, many of which reside here on this forum. The Mk12, more than any other modern platform or small arms program, has been shrouded in misinformation. While the majority of it has been unraveled, this should visually assist the Mk12 enthusiast as well as the new Mk12 clone builder in identifying correct specs and enhancing overall knowledge of the platform. A few caveats… the original items on this gun are the complete upper receiver and the scope rings. The lower receiver is a NoDak A1 equipped with a SOPMOD stock. While as most folks know this a very common end user modification, for the purpose of this overview its important to note that all Mk12 Mod 0s left Crane NSWC with A1 fixed stocks. Other items not original to the upper are the ARMS #40L rear sight, the bipod, and the optic. The ARMS #40L replaced the standard #40 to assist in eye relief adjustment of the optic. The optic is correct for the model but is not original to this upper. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/fullgun.jpg Starting from the rear, is the PRI Gas Buster charging handle. This one is anodized either tan or clear, it's hard to tell. The majority of the Gas Busters I've seen on Mod 0s from this era feature this finish. You'll also notice the retained A1 forward assist, as most know is featured on all early to mid Mk12s and were salvaged from the M16A1s used to build the platform on. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/chargingHandle2.jpg http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/chargingHandle.jpg The upper receiver features the Armalite forging mark. The folks that I've spoke with that were involved in the Mk12 program have said that all upper receivers were obtained from either Colt or Armalite. To date all Mk12 Mod 0s I've seen have had either Colt or Armalite markings. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/upperMarking.jpg As most know, all of the original Mk12 Mod 0s were painted tan with Cal-Guard coating. The upper has clearly been rattle canned by its user, but you can see the original Cal-Guard finish on the inside of the dust cover. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/dustCover.jpg The SWAN Sleeve has been covered thoroughly and accurately in this forum, so no need to exhaustively cover it again. Below are some photos for reference of the correct model and it's markings. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/rightSide.jpg http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/railFront.jpg The handguard is a Gen I, identifiable by the button head cap screws attaching the female portion of the barrel nut assembly to the fiberglass handguard tube. This is a key feature that delineates the Gen I from the Gen II handguard. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/rightSide2.jpg The left side shows the cut of the SWAN Sleeve common to his generation Mod 0 receiver. The two areas void of paint match the mounting bracket on an AN/PEQ-2 perfectly, and the small square is the correct size for the small pressure pad. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/LeftSide.jpg The front sight is the early elevation adjustable model, attached with four set screws. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/frontSightside.jpg http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/frontSightTop.jpg Other items to note are the early thread protector and ARMS #22M rings without lever stops. http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/threadProtect.jpg http://www.badgerordnance.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/ARMS22M.jpg So again, most of this info is common knowledge to those in this forum and there are plenty of awesome examples of Mod 0s in this thread. I just wanted to post this short overview to help validate the authenticity of many of the clones here and provide an example for those that may be getting started. Hope it's helpful. And that is what we call page ownage 
|
Sparrow II purchased 12/18/14. BATFE check cashed 1/6/15. Stamp cleared 3/25/15. In my hands 3/31/15
|
Glass1, that is a beautiful piece of history you have there.
For the rest of us that have to build with the PRI replica parts I wanted to take some pictures of how yours compares to those. I haven’t seen a lot of builds using those parts in this thread, which surprise me with all the excitement that surrounded them when they came out. This is not going to look exactly the same since the replica tube is a Gen II instead of a Gen I but I think everything else should be comparable. One thing I noticed is the addon rails on the new tubes have PRI molded into them and the ones in Glass1s post didn’t – or the paint filled them in. 
Other than getting an ARMS top rail, which are rare and $$ not much can be improved with that. For the FSB I am not going to address the slight differences in the sight itself since those would be hard or impossible to rectify. However I have two ideas to get it closer to the original. First, the large heads on the screws are very noticeable – I am going to try to use button head screws with the heads turned down to fit inside the indentations on the FSB. The second would be to swap the retro upper half of the FSB with a setscrew lower half. I don’t know if these is even possible but a quick glance makes me think the bottoms are the same. The ARMS rear sight is correct and I believe are still made and are common in the EE. The OPS brake is not made any more, the AE brake which is in production is slightly longer but otherwise the same. OPS brakes but can be found in the EE with some looking. The thread protector also looks identical. The collars sold now are the newer shorter style, when Glass1 makes the long collars I am in for one. Either the KAC or ARMS bipod mount could be used. Both are in production and can be found easily. I am using the ARMS on my build. 
Colt upper receivers with a round forward assist are in production, the round FA can be replaced with a teardrop. ARMS medium rings are still made but have the lever stops, however the rings without the stops can also be found in the EE. The rings on my build had BTDT with multiple layers of cammo paint on them. Even with being soaked in various solvents for several days they still have some paint on them as can be seen. The Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40 M3 is still made. I am using a Vari-X III made in 1998 which is probably period correct. I also am using a 7.62 168gr turret on it which is ballistically similar to the 77gr MK262 round and was used before Leupold made the dedicated turret for the SPR. 
The major differences are the PRI vs ARMs top rail and the clamp on vs set screw FSB. The top rail cannot be replicated but I think the FSB can be improved. Other than those two (major) things most of the other parts are still made or readily available with some looking on the EE or other forum classifieds. This weekend on my build I am going to try out the turned down setscrews on the FSB and replace the round FA with a teardrop. |
|
Originally Posted By Jax_Guns: Glass1, that is a beautiful piece of history you have there. For the rest of us that have to build with the PRI replica parts I wanted to take some pictures of how yours compares to those. I haven’t seen a lot of builds using those parts in this thread, which surprise me with all the excitement that surrounded them when they came out. This is not going to look exactly the same since the replica tube is a Gen II instead of a Gen I but I think everything else should be comparable. One thing I noticed is the addon rails on the new tubes have PRI molded into them and the ones in Glass1s post didn’t – or the paint filled them in. The major differences are the PRI vs ARMs top rail and the clamp on vs set screw FSB. The top rail cannot be replicated but I think the FSB can be improved. Other than those two (major) things most of the other parts are still made or readily available with some looking on the EE or other forum classifieds. This weekend on my build I am going to try out the turned down setscrews on the FSB and replace the round FA with a teardrop. And I agree, they really dropped the ball on that FSB. |
|
I tried out my idea to make the screw heads on the FSB less obvious. A quick trip to Ace Hardware got me two screws with the same thread and length.
Only problem was the heads were too large to fit in the recessed areas on the FSB. I don’t have any machine tools so I used a drill and a file to reduce the diameter of the heads. I chucked the screw into the drill and then held the file against it until it was the right size. Then I smoothed the areas I worked on with some sandpaper and touched them up with cold blue. Maybe not a good as a setscrew FSB but makes it a little easier to live with. When I have some more time I am going to order a setscrew FSB and see if the flip up part can be swapped onto it. 
Originally Posted By secretwheelman:
If PRI had made that barrel nut look right, they would've had a winner. And I agree, they really dropped the ball on that FSB. Originally Posted By secretwheelman:
Originally Posted By Jax_Guns:
Glass1, that is a beautiful piece of history you have there. For the rest of us that have to build with the PRI replica parts I wanted to take some pictures of how yours compares to those. I haven’t seen a lot of builds using those parts in this thread, which surprise me with all the excitement that surrounded them when they came out. This is not going to look exactly the same since the replica tube is a Gen II instead of a Gen I but I think everything else should be comparable. One thing I noticed is the addon rails on the new tubes have PRI molded into them and the ones in Glass1s post didn’t – or the paint filled them in. The major differences are the PRI vs ARMs top rail and the clamp on vs set screw FSB. The top rail cannot be replicated but I think the FSB can be improved. Other than those two (major) things most of the other parts are still made or readily available with some looking on the EE or other forum classifieds. This weekend on my build I am going to try out the turned down setscrews on the FSB and replace the round FA with a teardrop. And I agree, they really dropped the ball on that FSB. |
Official Mk12 Mod0, Mod1, ModH Photo and Discussion Thread (Page 449 of 1226)
AR Sponsor