• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Krazny13

Private
Minuteman
Aug 19, 2006
92
0
Denial
I'm going to preface this with the following note. I'm not in an industry where I carry a weapon every day, kick in crack house doors at o'dark-thirty, nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. My background is in test engineering and validation of heavy equipment, and this overview reflects that. If this oversteps my lane, please trash this thread. This document is intended to establish a baseline overview of the SR 25 EC, and provide additional information on this rifle to interested parties.

IMAG0136.jpg


I recently purchased a Knights Armament SR 25 EC (KAC P/N: 30365) from an online retailer. This rifle was selected as it contained all the features I was looking for, at a reasonable price. After shipping, and FFL Transfer, the total expenditure was $3635. Upon receipt, the case contained the rifle, a 0-600m micro rear sight, (KAC P/N: 25650) 1 20 round KAC 7.62 magazine, a pair of QD Sling studs, a rail mounted QD socket (KAC P/N: 98720), and a packet containing a test target, a 25m Zeroing target, and fairly comprehensive Owner Operator Manual (OMM) for the M-110. A quick inspection was undertaken before transfer to verify the item was as ordered.

After getting home, and reading the OMM, (Yes, I read the OMM, all 116 pages of it. . .) a functional check was undertaken to verify correct and safe operation. No issues were noted. After the check, a more extensive inspection was performed, the results of which are outlined below.

Initial impressions were favorable. Weight was 9.75 lbs with a Magpul MIAD, Sling mounts, BUIS, and rail panels installed. Overall length is 35.5 inches with stock collapsed. Center of gravity is located approximately 18 inches from the muzzle. I have a 5.56 carbine set up in a similar configuration, (16 inch barrel, rifle length URX2) and a 7.62 mm carbine with similar layout would be beneficial to me for training purposes. The balance is a bit closer to the muzzle on the SR 25, but this is likely due to the heavier profile barrel. 7.62mm PMags were found to insert easily, lock back the bolt, and drop free with no issues. The only real complaint at this point was the complete absence of any lubrication on the rifle. (Rifle was dryer than the Atacama desert.) During the course of the inspection, this was remedied as per the OMM using Slip2000 EWL.

IMAG0111.jpg

View comparing the SR25EC (bottom) to my 5.56mm carbine. (top)

For location purposes, a datum set must be established. For the purposes of this document, the horizontal datum will run down the centerline of the rifled bore, with the muzzle defined as 0. The vertical datum will run parallel to the magazine feed direction, with the rifle's top rail defined as 0. An angular datum will be defined as looking down the sights with the front sight post defined as the 12 o'clock position.

Starting at the muzzle, the flash hider is an A1 style, 6 slot device similar to the one found on the M-110. The slots are evenly distributed and the unit is compatible with the KAC EMC suppressor. Only other item of note is the coloration on the unit. The first half inch of the Parkerizing is a very dark grey/black, before transitioning to a lighter shade of grey. As per Casey at Lawmen's, this is intentional, as to maintain suppressor alignment as the finish wears. Please note this is a cosmetic issue only, and I presented it in this write up mostly because it piqued my curiosity.

The gas block is a low profile affair with an integrated suppressor collar. This is intended for the EMC Suppressor, and has a pair of 0.125 inch diameter pins protruding approximately 0.188 inches located one each at the 5 and 6 o'clock position. These pins are likely for use in indexing the EMC suppressor. Unknown if the pins are tapped into the barrel. The gas block itself is secured to the barrel using a pair of taper pins at the bottom, and a roll pin at the top.

IMAG0113.jpg

Picture showing the gas block and indexing pins, as well as the FH

Moving on, the railed hand guard is a rifle length SR 25 URX2. (KAC P/N: 24613) I'm a fan of the URX2's, as I find them to be comfortable to use, lightweight, and provide enough rail estate for the various things I bolt onto my rifles. Also, as a sucker for clever overengineering, (Normal people don't understand this concept; they believe that if it isn't broken, don't fix it. Engineers believe that if it isn't broken, it doesn't have enough features yet.) I find the URX2's integrated front sight to be the greatest thing since sliced <span style="text-decoration: line-through">bread</span> bacon. As noted earlier, the lack of lubrication made the operation of the front sight difficult at first. By adding a cut segment of ladder rail cover to the sight, and oiling the mechanism, the front sight is now easy to deploy if needed. If I have one complaint about this rail, it's that it lacks the QD Sockets on the 3 and 9 o'clock rails found on the 5.56mm version. I prefer to run a VTAC sling from the right side of the butt stock to the 9 o'clock rail just in front of the receiver, and on my 5.56 guns I don't need an adaptor to do so. Fortunately, KAC included a rail mounted QD Socket (KAC P/N: 98720) which I installed at this location. The included 11 rib rail covers were left at their 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions, and a ladder rail cover was installed to protect the top rail. No heat shield was present, possibly due to either the barrel diameter or weight considerations.

IMAG0129.jpg

View of SR25 EC's 3 o'clock rail. Note lack of QD Socket.

IMAG0132.jpg

View of 3 o'clock 5.56mm URX2 rail. Note QD Socket.

The barrel is a 16 inch unit with 5R, 1 in 11 inch twist rifling. In front of the gas block, the barrel diameter is 0.725 inches, and behind the gas block and running the full length under the rail, its 0.875 inches with a slight increasing taper as it heads to the chamber. Unlike the earlier EMC, this barrel is not chrome lined, nor does it possess the dimpling under the rail. I'm giving some consideration to sending the barrel off to Marvin Pitts to work his dimpling magic on, just to see if that will shift the center of gravity back to better match my 5.56mm gun, as well as shave a little bit of weight off. Gasport is located approximately 3.125 inches back from the crown, 4.75 inches back from the muzzle.

Next, the upper receiver is a pretty standard looking A4 style. It features an integrated brass deflector, but no forward assist. The charging handle latch notch is cut on both sides, suggesting that there may be a mirrored charging handle for southpaws at some point. The ejection port and dust cover are noticeably larger than expected, measuring in at 0.875 inches tall, and 3.5 inches long. Dust cover is one piece, and functions normally. The upper receiver and URX2 rail are timed perfectly, with no gap visible. Inspection with a straight edge shows that the top rails on both the URX2 and the upper are aligned.

IMAG0130.jpg

View of right side of upper receiver. Note charging handle notch, and large ejection port door.

The charging handle is a Knight's Armament in house design using Gasbuster features licensed from PRI to redirect blowback from the shooter's eyes and face. All edges are nicely blended, and with no sharp corners. I was expecting this to be easier to operate with my weak side hand, but the latch doesn't seem to protrude far enough, nor the knurling aggressive enough to reliably facilitate the one handed palm slap method I prefer. I'll probably pick up a BCM Gunfighter and perform the Permatex mod to it soon as a replacement.

IMAG0128.jpg

KAC 'Gasbuster' while I try to charge it one handed.

IMAG0134.jpg

5.56mm Gunfighter using the same technique.

The bolt carrier is a massive affair compared to the AR15's unit. The only tool marks noted on the entire rifle were on the charging handle shelf in front of the gas key. Not a big deal with respect to function or form, but fairly impressive for a production rifle. The gas key was nicely staked. Again, going back to the whole 'overengineering' thing, I found the captive firing pin retaining pin to be a neat bit of human engineering on Knight Armament's part. Otherwise, the only other difference from an AR15 is that during assembly and disassembly, the cam pin is inserted without rotating it to align the firing pin hole.

IMAG0114.jpg

View of bolt carrier demonstrating the captive firing pin retaining pin.

The bolt is also hard chromed for ease of cleaning. Fitted with a massive extractor and ejector, I don't think there's be much issue with extraction. The bolt lugs appear to be rounded and chamfered, and bring to mind the SR15's E3 style bolt. Also interesting was the gas ring, which appears to be a one piece metal seal with a stepped gap cut into it to prevent gas leakage when installed in the bolt.

IMAG0116.jpg

View of bolt. Note ejector and bolt lugs.

 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

IMAG0118.jpg

View of gas ring. Note 'seal' with stepped notch.

Finally, we have the lower receiver. The upper receiver takedown pins operate smoothly and firmly, and can be pushed out without a tool. Controls are standard AR15 type, but with 2 minor alterations. First is the ambidextrous selector. As a right handed individual, this was mildly irritating at first. Its growing on me, especially with the way KAC notched it to make it lower profile. I may replace it in the future if I decide to expend the time and energy to, but for now it stays. The second change is in the addition of a left side magazine release. This release is fairly easy to actuate, and in practicing magazine changes, I've found it's fairly easy to hit as you grasp and pull the mag. Not sure I'll switch to this method, but it's something useful. Southpaws will actually have a bit of an advantage, because they can actuate both the mag release and the bolt release with their trigger or middle fingers. The Magpul BAD is not compatible with the SR 25 EC's bolt release, but even if it was, the raised fencing around the left side magazine release might interfere with its function. The trigger is Knight Armament's 2 stage match trigger. While an older design, it's still a reliable, precision trigger. Long term it may get swapped out for a Giessele DMR if I find one for a good price, but for now it'll remain. I prefer 2 stage triggers, and I am comfortable using them over single stage triggers for run and gun applications. The mil-spec diameter receiver extension is held on using a castle nut QD socket mount (KAC P/N: 24103), and appears to be slightly longer than a normal extension. (7.5 inches instead of 6.5 inches.) It also has 10 positions and a drain hole in the back. Rifle came with an LMT SOPMOD stock installed, and I hate to admit this but I think I'll leave it on for now. I briefly installed a CTR, but the weight of the LMT seems to balance it better. I may try a Magpul ACS or STR, as I originally started using the CTR on my 5.56mm guns partially (in addition to the CTR's smaller size and weight) because the SOPMOD I had kept ripping out my facial hair, and the friction lock of the CTR stopped that. I did replace the stock A2 grip with a Magpul MIAD. Since I prefer to use the B2 back strap, I had to install the AR10/SR25 gapper as well. Use of this is required, as not only does it fill the gap between the back strap and the receiver, but it also supports the rear takedown pin detent spring. (Both the Selector detent and the rear take down detent springs are supported by the pistol grip, in KAC guns, unlike others where the R=ear take down pin detent is held in place by the butt stock or receiver end plate.) I had to Dremel the hell out of the gapper to get it to fit right, but once I did everything dropped into place and functioned normally. The majority of the material I removed was in the center, ribbed section, with a small bit on the inside of the sides. While I had the pistol grip off, I also replaced the trigger guard with an aluminum Magpul unit. The Knight's Armament trigger guard is nice, but I found the protruding nub on the bottom interfered with my middle finger when I was manipulating the rifle. It also did not fill the gap at the intersection of the grip and trigger guard. Not a problem for most folks, but the way I grip AR's, combined with the shape of my knuckle means that after a couple hours of shooting I'm bleeding due to the exposed edges.

IMAG0126.jpg

Left side view of SR25 showing the ambidextrous magazine release.

IMAG0123.jpg

View showing that the ambidextrous mag release can be reached by trigger and middle fingers.

IMAG0124.jpg

View showing how a southpaw can reach the bolt release with trigger or middle fingers.

IMAG0122.jpg

View showing how a right handed individual might utilize the ambidextrous mag release during a mag change.

I haven't had an opportunity to shoot it yet, but I'll update this thread when I do. As stated at the beginning, this was intended as a baseline overview. Currently planning on running a couple of different 168 gr match loads through it, as well as some 175's and some 147 gr FN ball. And whatever else I can get my hands on.

Optic wise, I haven't decided yet. I have a Leupold Mark 4 LR/T 3.5-10x40 with an illuminated mildot reticle in a LT-111 mount I had picked up for an OBR, but that's a bit too much scope for what I intend to use this rifle for. I'm looking in the 1-4x or 1-6x range, and there's a lot to choose from. Suggestions are welcome.

If there's any questions, or requests for pictures or data, please feel free to ask. I'll do my best to get it answered.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

What I was alluding to earlier was that I did in fact receive the OBR I ordered in November, last week. Its an 18 inch 7.62 model with a CTR Stock, MIAD Grip, and some other goodies. Let me add that I think the OBR is an amazing piece of kit in its own right, that's why I ordered one. I may do an overview of the OBR later, but there's plenty of press and reviews out there already covering the OBR. Not as many for the SR25 EC, hence why I did it.

I don't think there's been any sort of a side by side comparison however between the latest SR25's and an OBR however. So lets start with the Bolt Carrier group, shall we?

For location purposes, a datum set must be established. For the purposes of this document, the horizontal datum will run down the centerline of the rifled bore, with the muzzle defined as 0. The vertical datum will run parallel to the magazine feed direction, with the rifle's top rail defined as 0. An angular datum will be defined as looking down the sights with the front sight post defined as the 12 o'clock position. Unless otherwise stated, assume the part on the Top or Right is the OBR, SR25 will be on the left or bottom.

IMAG0178.jpg


Overview of the BCG's, SR25 on the left, OBR on the right. The SR25 has the captured firing pin retention pin resulting in 1 less part. Otherwise assembly and dis assembly is the same.
Comparing the two BCG's, the OBR exhibits a lot more attention to detail in the more noticeable areas. However, the KAC seems to have a more consistant level of attention to detail applied to the entire BCG, most of which is very subtle and easy to miss.

IMAG0173.jpg

Top view of the Bolt Carriers. Both have nicely staked gas keys. The OBR has a very polished, slick surface, whereas the SR's isnt quite as slick and more of a matte finish. Both hold oil well - so no issues there.

IMAG0175.jpg

Right side view of Bolt Carriers.

IMAG0176.jpg

Left side view. Note the SR25's captive firing pin retaining pin. The OBR uses a conventional cotter pin.

IMAG0177.jpg

Bottom view. Note the polished ramp on the OBR's Bolt Carrier. The only real complaint I have on the LT bolt carrier is visible - excessive tool marks on the firing pin bore visible in the hammer cut out. Purely cosmetic of course.

IMAG0174.jpg

Front View. The bolt bore is machined to a mirror finish on the OBR, and results in a low effort, smooth bolt camming action.

IMAG0172.jpg

Picture of the cam pins. No real difference here, aside from the LT marking on the OBR's pin.

IMAG0167.jpg

Firing pins. The OBR has a spring, possibly to prevent slam fires with commercial primers. The SR is designed for harder military primers and lacks this feature. Remove the spring and the firing pins have a similar profile. The OBR's firing pin is far better machined, but isn't as polished - making carbon buildup more likely.

IMAG0168.jpg

Top view of the bolts. The OBR's bolt exhibits the same surface finish as the bolt carrier. Add a bit of oil and its very slick.

IMAG0170.jpg

Front view of the bolts. They are very similar, with 2 exceptions.Note the larger extractor and the radiused lugs on the SR's bolt. The SR exhibits a healthier ejection pattern compared to the OBR, but both are more than adequate.

That concludes the Bolt/Bolt Carrier comparison. I'll get more up soon.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

And for more comparison information. Sorry for the delay, my camera was being. . . difficult.

Comparing the SR25EC and the OBR is a lot like comparing a Porsche to an Aston Martin. Both are excellent. Both are expensive. Both have die hard fans, and others who cannot stand them. And at the end of the day, you really can't go wrong with either one. . . .

IMAG0146.jpg

Right side view.

IMAG0147.jpg

Left side view.

When shouldering the OBR and the SR25EC, there is a noticible difference. The OBR doesn't feel as front heavy, nor does it seem to feel as heavy as the SR25. This is due to the position of the center of gravity and the weight distribution of the rifles. The OBR's CG is almost an inch further to the rear despite its 18 inch barrel, a product of its lighter profile barrel (~0.750 inch dia) and the CTR/RISR combination, whereas the SR25 has a much heavier barrel profile (0.875 in) and a lighter weight stock. (LMT SOPMOD) However, as pictured, the OBR weighs more than the SR25. Its not really a fair comparison, as the OBR lacks BUIS, Rails, Rail covers, sling mounts, and has a lighter stock and pistol grip fitted. Add those items on, and the weight difference increases to more than half a pound in the SR25's favor.

The Uppers and Lowers are interchangeable. Not really much of a suprise, but something that I wanted to confirm.

IMAG0158.jpg

OBR Upper on an SR25 EC Lower. I call it the SOBR-25. The SR25 upper fits on the OBR Lower as well. The upper to lower fit on the SR25 is snug, whereas on the OBR it's very tight.

The OBR uses standard AR fire controls, and the same manual of arms. Unlike the KAC, no adjustments in technique will be needed to take advantage of the ambi mag release, or safety, as they are not available on the OBR as of yet. Both guns easily seated loaded and unloaded KAC, Magpul and LT Mags, and all dropped free.

I'll compare the lowers and uppers, as there's a couple of points on each I'd like to point out.

IMAG0180.jpg

Separated, left side view

IMAG0179.jpg

Separated, right side view

There's a couple of minor differences between the lowers aside from the ambi mag release and safety. The OBR Lower is a carefully machined item, and has a couple of nice touches, such as the front takedown pin bore being blended into the front of the lower, where the KAC's forged unit has a more pronounced protrusion for the front takedown pin. The LT has an integrated trigger guard, compared to the SR25's ability to use any GI type, including KAC, Magpul, USGI, or RRA's winter guard. The LT lower can use standard AR grips without issue, whereas the SR requires one that can support the rear takedown detent spring - not a big deal, but something one should be aware of when shopping for replacements. Use of a gap filler is also suggested on the SR25 when switching to a grip with a back strap, such as a MIAD. Lastly, the buffer tubes differ. As I reported earlier, the 10 position extension on the SR25 is almost a full inch longer than the normal AR15's, at 7.5 inches. The buffer tube on the OBR is another half inch longer, coming in at almost 8 inches long with 6 positions. Not sure what the buffer weight is on the SR25, but the OBR has an H2 as delivered. Weighing the lowers, the SR25's comes in at 2.5 lbs, with the OBR is just over 3 lbs. Difference is likely due to the longer buffer tube, RISR, and some of the blends/features on the LT Lower. The OBR has a Geissele SSA trigger, which is comparable to the SR25's KAC 2 stage unit.

I'd like to point out that the LT as pictured has one of the new LT APEG Grips on it. I ordered a MIAD, but as per the customer service rep I talked to, all LT rifles are now shipping with an APEG installed. To their credit, they shipped the MIAD separately, I just didn't install it for this comparison. The APEG is a couple ounces lighter, and while I'm sure many folks will like it, I just can't get used to it. The shape feels wrong to me, and the way the front transitions to the sides could have been blended a bit better, particularly where the middle and ring fingers sit on the grip in a firing stance.

IMAG0182.jpg

Right side view of the lowers. Note the blending on the front of the LT lower.

IMAG0181.jpg

Left side view. Note the integrated trigger guard and APEG Grip on the LT lower.

IMAG0184.jpg

Top view of the lowers showing the magwell, Bolt catch, and FCG areas. Note the additional material removed in the LT lower in the corners, and the larger/beefier bolt catch on the SR25EC.

IMAG0149.jpg

Picture of the buffer tubes. Note the OBR's additional length and location of the position notches.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Excellent review in my opinion great job. Can't wait for part 2.

The pics are great also. You should quit your day job and make gun review video's.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

The carrier is the same one that was in my LMT MWS and it had a small exhaust hole for venting gas which caused the rifle to be severely over-gassed. The over-gassing caused a random failure to eject. Hope the KAC bcg works better in a kac than an lmt. If your brass ejects at 1pm and or you have brass marks on the forward part of your ejection port you will know you have the same problem I had.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

FYI, I'm 90% sure your gas ring is a two piece stacked unit. It looks one piece, but there is a second ring below the top one.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Great review so far can't wait to see more. But there are a couple of things I would like clear up. First there is actually a reason as to why the flash hider is like that. The forward un-coated section of the flash hider actually acts as a second point of reference when one of our gas block mounted suppressors is utilized. It acts to ensure proper alignment with the bullet path of the suppressor as to reduce the potential for a baffle or end-cap strike. It is un-coated because we found out on the Mk11 program that after mounting, shooting, and un-mounting the suppressors many times the coating wears off putting the suppressor in the position that a strike may occur. The 2-stage match trigger is not an adjustable trigger. The adjustment screws are merely there should the trigger ever fall out of spec. Finally the gas ring as "DP" stated it is in fact a two piece gas ring. Other than those minor correction I think this is one of the most in-depth review I have read and currently enjoying every word of it.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Ahh. Good to know. I shall update it with those corrections.
I've been poking at my gas ring with a set of picks for about 15 minutes, and it sure doesn't look like a 2 piece setup to me. I'm hesitant to remove it to be sure - don't want to damage otherwise functional parts.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Could you expand more on this "The adjustment screws are merely there should the trigger ever fall out of spec." When I noticed the screws I was actually tempted to swap out my trigger as I didnt want the liability of a point of failure. But based on your coment, I could remove these screws altogether with no ill effect other than lake of future corrective adjustment?

Thanks,
Shane
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

I was under the impression those screws adjusted the amount of creep/takeup distance in the trigger.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Krazny</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ahh. Good to know. I shall update it with those corrections.
I've been poking at my gas ring with a set of picks for about 15 minutes, and it sure doesn't look like a 2 piece setup to me. I'm hesitant to remove it to be sure - don't want to damage otherwise functional parts.
</div></div>

Trust me, unless they changed the design again since the updated Mk11 and M110- it's two piece. I'm pretty sure he'd have corrected me if I were wrong on this.


As far as the trigger, as I recall... the jist of it is, the screws are for factory or armer adjustment should the trigger fall out of spec as adjusted from the factory. It's not intended to be adjusted by the end user.

This may be of particular importance as when the M110's were first introduced, there were widespread trigger problems... which were addressed and corrected... but I'm sure KAC doesn't want a repeat of those problems caused by the end-user on these guns.

That's my guess anyway...
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Looks like it changes the engagement of the Hammer/Disco/Sear, if I'm looking at it correctly. Also looks like they don't want anyone messing with it, if the epoxy in the hex screw caps is any indication.

However, in the interest of collecting endurance data from a mechanically unmodified firearm, I'll refrain from tinkering with it.


I did confirm the existence of the second gas ring. So that's no longer a subject for debate. The second ring was a tight fit, blended well into the bottom of the groove. So used to looking at piston rings it didn't cross my mind there'd be another one under it.

 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Once again "DP" is correct regarding the trigger's set screws they are in place to adjust the sear and disconnector. If you were to completely remove the set screws your trigger would be rendered unless and non-functional. Also as Krazny stated the epoxy placed on the set screws are to discourage individuals from making "adjustments" on their own. In fact we dedicate almost an entire day in our military armorer's course to the trigger assembly so military armorers will be able to completely identify and correct any issues a solider may incur in the field, especially if the solider tried to "adjust" the trigger on their own.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Krazny, that was a damn good review. Definitely one of the most thorough and informative I've ever read. Great job!
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Wouldn't Owner Operator Manual be OOM?
wink.gif


Nice, comprehensive overview of the EC. Are the low profile gas block and the lack of barrel dimpling and chrome lining the only differences between the EC and the EMC?

It's good to see the pricing has fallen. Kudos to the folks at KAC for staying with the civilian market.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LAWMENS</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Great review so far can't wait to see more. But there are a couple of things I would like clear up. First there is actually a reason as to why the flash hider is like that. The forward un-coated section of the flash hider actually acts as a second point of reference when one of our gas block mounted suppressors is utilized. It acts to ensure proper alignment with the bullet path of the suppressor as to reduce the potential for a baffle or end-cap strike. It is un-coated because we found out on the Mk11 program that after mounting, shooting, and un-mounting the suppressors many times the coating wears off putting the suppressor in the position that a strike may occur. The 2-stage match trigger is not an adjustable trigger. The adjustment screws are merely there should the trigger ever fall out of spec. Finally the gas ring as "DP" stated it is in fact a two piece gas ring. Other than those minor correction I think this is one of the most in-depth review I have read and currently enjoying every word of it. </div></div>

I always thought that area must have had a different heat treat. If the forward section is the uncoated part, why not make the whole unit that color? The forward section is a nice color of black that matches the weapon, while the coated area is grey and doesn't match. It seems counterproductive to bother with coating half of it in a not-matching color.

Black Oxide is 0.000030" thick (~ half a ten thousandth on the diameter), so it would allow you to achieve a uniform black color throughout without that problem.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

well, my wag is that cosmetics are not a consideration and that there is likely a benefit. Perhaps the FH lasts longer by being coated where blast and temp is highest?
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vmpgsc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Wouldn't Owner Operator Manual be OOM?
wink.gif

</div></div>

Sorry, workplace terminology carryover. The Owner Operator Manuals we place in machines are called 'Owner/Operator Machine Manuals' or OMM's. So as a general term any manual is referred to as an OMM.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shane45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">well, my wag is that cosmetics are not a consideration and that there is likely a benefit. Perhaps the FH lasts longer by being coated where blast and temp is highest? </div></div>

If I'm understanding it correctly, the black section is th unfinished portion. And due to the way the gas exits the barrel, that section is the section that receives the bulk of the blast and highest temps.

And I think you folks may enjoy what I've got planned. My bank account doesn't, but I'm fairly confident it'll be interesting.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

In deference to the actual experts in this thread(me not being one of them), I was just basing my thoughts off of observed comp wear on calibers that were not brake friendly. They ate the comps closest to the muzzle.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shane45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In deference to the actual experts in this thread(me not being one of them), I was just basing my thoughts off of observed comp wear on calibers that were not brake friendly. They ate the comps closest to the muzzle. </div></div>

That's why I figured on a harder heat treat like the original two tone spring tempered feed lip 1911 magazines.

Some parts are heat treated differently in different areas, cutting tools come to mind. With induction heating localized areas of a part can be quickly heated independently of the rest of the part. Obviously I was wrong, but the two color flash hider was different.

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PG18yJdTP9A&feature=related"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PG18yJdTP9A&feature=related" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Working on a comparison to the OBR. With Pics!

Some interesting things I've learned:

Uppers and lowers are compatible.
The LT feels lighter than the EC, but isn't.
The KAC BCG is more impressive to me than the LT. (LT's has an amazingly slippery finish however)
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

It's been a good read so far. Let's see the next stuff. Thanks,
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Going to be tomorrow unfortunately. My camera has decided that it no longer wants to function. . . .
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Well I was previously kidding about the dimples but I will tell you that from a handling standpoint its not even a close contest between the EMC and the OBR or MWS. I wonder just how much those dimples account for in the weight of the barrel?!?!?!
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Great review Krazny, I wish they were all this thorough. Great pics too. I'm really looking forward to the OBR comparison.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: shane45</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I wonder just how much those dimples account for in the weight of the barrel?!?!?! </div></div>

I've heard 11 ounces. (~0.7 lbs)

The thing is, any way you slice it, the EC or EMC is going to be 1 to 1.8 lbs lighter, and not feel as nose heavy as the MWS. That's not a big deal if you're shooting off the bench, but I'd like something I can hunt with and maybe take to a course or 3 gun match.

I've managed to get some of the pics off my camera, but not all. I'm thinking I'm going to have to retake most of the pictures. . . .
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Ok, I've got some of the pics off - I'm going to post what I have now, and retake the rest. Sorry for the delay.

What I was alluding to earlier was that I did in fact receive the OBR I ordered in November, last week. Its an 18 inch 7.62 model with a CTR Stock, MIAD Grip, and some other goodies. Let me add that I think the OBR is an amazing piece of kit in its own right, that's why I ordered one. I may do an overview of the OBR later, but there's plenty of press and reviews out there already covering the OBR. Not as many for the SR25 EC, hence why I did it.

I don't think there's been any sort of a side by side comparison however between the latest SR25's and an OBR however. So lets start with the Bolt Carrier group, shall we?

For location purposes, a datum set must be established. For the purposes of this document, the horizontal datum will run down the centerline of the rifled bore, with the muzzle defined as 0. The vertical datum will run parallel to the magazine feed direction, with the rifle's top rail defined as 0. An angular datum will be defined as looking down the sights with the front sight post defined as the 12 o'clock position. Unless otherwise stated, assume the part on the Top or Right is the OBR, SR25 will be on the left or bottom.

IMAG0178.jpg


Overview of the BCG's, SR25 on the left, OBR on the right. The SR25 has the captured firing pin retention pin resulting in 1 less part. Otherwise assembly and dis assembly is the same.
Comparing the two BCG's, the OBR exhibits a lot more attention to detail in the more noticeable areas. However, the KAC seems to have a more consistant level of attention to detail applied to the entire BCG, most of which is very subtle and easy to miss.

IMAG0173.jpg

Top view of the Bolt Carriers. Both have nicely staked gas keys. The OBR has a very polished, slick surface, whereas the SR's isnt quite as slick and more of a matte finish. Both hold oil well - so no issues there.

IMAG0175.jpg

Right side view of Bolt Carriers.

IMAG0176.jpg

Left side view. Note the SR25's captive firing pin retaining pin. The OBR uses a conventional cotter pin.

IMAG0177.jpg

Bottom view. Note the polished ramp on the OBR's Bolt Carrier. The only real complaint I have on the LT bolt carrier is visible - excessive tool marks on the firing pin bore visible in the hammer cut out. Purely cosmetic of course.

IMAG0174.jpg

Front View. The bolt bore is machined to a mirror finish on the OBR, and results in a low effort, smooth bolt camming action.

IMAG0172.jpg

Picture of the cam pins. No real difference here, aside from the LT marking on the OBR's pin.

IMAG0167.jpg

Firing pins. The OBR has a spring, possibly to prevent slam fires with commercial primers. The SR is designed for harder military primers and lacks this feature. Remove the spring and the firing pins have a similar profile. The OBR's firing pin is far better machined, but isn't as polished - making carbon buildup more likely.

IMAG0168.jpg

Top view of the bolts. The OBR's bolt exhibits the same surface finish as the bolt carrier. Add a bit of oil and its very slick.

IMAG0170.jpg

Front view of the bolts. They are very similar, with 2 exceptions.Note the larger extractor and the radiused lugs on the SR's bolt. The SR exhibits a healthier ejection pattern compared to the OBR, but both are more than adequate.

That concludes the Bolt/Bolt Carrier comparison. I'll get more up soon.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Yes, but not by much. If my measurement is correct, about 0.07 in for the KAC, and about 0.075 in for the OBR. Hard to get any more accurate with the tools I have on hand.

The camera perspective doesn't help much either. . . .
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC









Krazny, I noticed that my bolt carrier has diagonal cuts in the the top and bottom bolt guides. You can see the diff when compared to a LMT's bolt carrier, which also does not have the cuts. I wonder if this is specific to the EMC?

DSC_0197-1.jpg


DSC_0190-1.jpg
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

You have a sand cut Bolt Carrier. Those were only on the later EMC's and I 'think' they are on the ECC's and ECR's. They were dropped fom the EC and ER as a cost savings to lower the price.

One of KAC's issues is that the 7.62 guns have low production numbers. And due to economy of scale, they're reluctant to introduce features like the sand cut BC's unless they are on the .mil guns. Problem is, the .mil won't allow changes to the base system. Whats bid is bid, regardless of cost savings, etc. (IIRC KevinB has stated that there is something like 47 engineering changes they'd like to make to the M-110 that would vastly improve reliability, accuracy, durability but the Army won't let them without having to reopen and rebid for the contract..)

And the market isn't there on the .civ side to support two completely different systems. So while they would like to use the sand cut BC's on civvie guns, they can't afford to. . .
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Kranzy,
Great review!
Thanks for taking the time to do & post.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

NP. I'll get the rest of my OBR/SR comparison up sometime this week. Had a hell of a time this weekend due to computer hardware failure. . . .
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Pure</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Love the in depth analysis. Would like to see what you say if you got your hands on a LWRC REPR. </div></div>

I did get a chance to when the REPR was released. (An associate had one that he had issues with) Lets just say that my overview consisted of a lot of four letter words caused by an out of spec lower receiver. . . .
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

You'll have to run one since they fixed that years ago. Having shot both I can say they are both great
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

And time for more comparison information. Sorry for the delay, my camera was being. . . difficult.

Comparing the SR25EC and the OBR is a lot like comparing a Porsche to an Aston Martin. Both are excellent. Both are expensive. Both have die hard fans, and others who cannot stand them. And at the end of the day, you really can't go wrong with either one. . . .

IMAG0146.jpg

Right side view.

IMAG0147.jpg

Left side view.

When shouldering the OBR and the SR25EC, there is a noticible difference. The OBR doesn't feel as front heavy, nor does it seem to feel as heavy as the SR25. This is due to the position of the center of gravity and the weight distribution of the rifles. The OBR's CG is almost an inch further to the rear despite its 18 inch barrel, a product of its lighter profile barrel (~0.750 inch dia) and the CTR/RISR combination, whereas the SR25 has a much heavier barrel profile (0.875 in) and a lighter weight stock. (LMT SOPMOD) However, as pictured, the OBR weighs more than the SR25. Its not really a fair comparison, as the OBR lacks BUIS, Rails, Rail covers, sling mounts, and has a lighter stock and pistol grip fitted. Add those items on, and the weight difference increases to more than half a pound in the SR25's favor.

The Uppers and Lowers are interchangeable. Not really much of a suprise, but something that I wanted to confirm.

IMAG0158.jpg

OBR Upper on an SR25 EC Lower. I call it the SOBR-25. The SR25 upper fits on the OBR Lower as well. The upper to lower fit on the SR25 is snug, whereas on the OBR it's very tight.

The OBR uses standard AR fire controls, and the same manual of arms. Unlike the KAC, no adjustments in technique will be needed to take advantage of the ambi mag release, or safety, as they are not available on the OBR as of yet. Both guns easily seated loaded and unloaded KAC, Magpul and LT Mags, and all dropped free.

I'll compare the lowers and uppers, as there's a couple of points on each I'd like to point out.

IMAG0180.jpg

Separated, left side view

IMAG0179.jpg

Separated, right side view

There's a couple of minor differences between the lowers aside from the ambi mag release and safety. The OBR Lower is a carefully machined item, and has a couple of nice touches, such as the front takedown pin bore being blended into the front of the lower, where the KAC's forged unit has a more pronounced protrusion for the front takedown pin. The LT has an integrated trigger guard, compared to the SR25's ability to use any GI type, including KAC, Magpul, USGI, or RRA's winter guard. The LT lower can use standard AR grips without issue, whereas the SR requires one that can support the rear takedown detent spring - not a big deal, but something one should be aware of when shopping for replacements. Use of a gap filler is also suggested on the SR25 when switching to a grip with a back strap, such as a MIAD. Lastly, the buffer tubes differ. As I reported earlier, the 10 position extension on the SR25 is almost a full inch longer than the normal AR15's, at 7.5 inches. The buffer tube on the OBR is another half inch longer, coming in at almost 8 inches long with 6 positions. Not sure what the buffer weight is on the SR25, but the OBR has an H2 as delivered. Weighing the lowers, the SR25's comes in at 2.5 lbs, with the OBR is just over 3 lbs. Difference is likely due to the longer buffer tube, RISR, and some of the blends/features on the LT Lower. The OBR has a Geissele SSA trigger, which is comparable to the SR25's KAC 2 stage unit.

I'd like to point out that the LT as pictured has one of the new LT APEG Grips on it. I ordered a MIAD, but as per the customer service rep I talked to, all LT rifles are now shipping with an APEG installed. To their credit, they shipped the MIAD separately, I just didn't install it for this comparison. The APEG is a couple ounces lighter, and while I'm sure many folks will like it, I just can't get used to it. The shape feels wrong to me, and the way the front transitions to the sides could have been blended a bit better, particularly where the middle and ring fingers sit on the grip in a firing stance.

IMAG0182.jpg

Right side view of the lowers. Note the blending on the front of the LT lower.

IMAG0181.jpg

Left side view. Note the integrated trigger guard and APEG Grip on the LT lower.

IMAG0184.jpg

Top view of the lowers showing the magwell, Bolt catch, and FCG areas. Note the additional material removed in the LT lower in the corners, and the larger/beefier bolt catch on the SR25EC.

IMAG0149.jpg

Picture of the buffer tubes. Note the OBR's additional length and location of the position notches.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Very complete review, Thanks for the the compare and contrast of the two weapons.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Awesome review, thanks for the detail.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

KAC makes outstanding rifles. I have an sr15 e3 and I think I'll be picking up the sr25 emc soon enough, especially after this great review.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

I do apologize for the delay in this last section. Real life intervened, and I haven't had much time to work on it. Special thanks to Desert01 over at Pro Patria, Inc. for hosting the pics.

Comparing the uppers is going to be a bit more difficult, as they were designed with different applications in mind. The OBR is optimized for longer range precision work, while the SR25 is setup as more of a close in battle rifle that can be used to provide precision fire. With that in mind, I'll just cover a couple of points here, mostly on specific components and not the overall uppers. The OBR's upper is approx. 6.75 lbs stripped, with the SR25's tipping the scales at just over 7.1 with panels and BUIS. Keep in mind, that after adding a set of BUIS, rail segments, index clips, rail covers, or grip adaptor panels, the OBR upper will weigh about the same.
The gas blocks are first up. The LT uses a Port Selector Technology (PST) gas block, which allows for proper function when fitted with a suppressor. This gas block is held on to the barrel using 3 set screws located at the 6 o'clock position. The SR25 has a non adjustable gas block with the integrated suppressor collar, held on by 3 taper pins. The SR25's gas block is a bit beefier, and more securely attached to the barrel when compared to the OBR's.

IMAG0191.jpg

Picture of the gas blocks and FH. Note the longer SR25 FH, and the PST Gas block on the OBR.

IMAG0152.jpg

Picture of the bottom of the OBR Gas block. Visible are 2 of the 3 set screws. The 3rd screw is under the rail.

The rails are another interesting difference. The SR25 uses a URX2, while the OBR uses the integrated hand guard. The OBR's rail is a bit more than a half an inch narrower, (1.66 inches vs. 2.2 on the URX without panels.) and is quite comfortable. As it lacks the full length rails on the bottom and sides, it doesn't need the lightning holes like the URX2. Downside is that you lose a lot of sling mounting options. In my case, as I prefer a sling mount at the 9 o'clock position just in front of the receiver, it'd require a completely different sling method. The SR25 at least allows for the installation of a sling mount at this location. This is not a big deal, as the OBR is more of a DMR/over watch platform, and the SR25's more of an up close weapon, but something that should be noted. If LT were to incorporate the capability to mount a LT-790 sling mount in that position, it would make for an excellent setup.

The uppers themselves are very similar, but there are a couple of differences. The SR has a larger ejection port, and an extra notch on the right side for a left-handed charging handle, while the OBR has M4 feed ramps and of course the 20 MOA Top rail and integrated hand guard. As noted earlier, they do interchange without issue. The charging handles are very similar, which shouldn't be too much of a surprise as the KAC CH uses licensed PRI Gasbuster elements, and the OBR uses a PRI Gasbuster. In either case I would (and have on the SR25.) replace them with a BCM/Vltor Gunfighter Mk 4 with the Permatex mod, as my preferred 'Palm Slap' method doesn't work very well with the stock latches on either CH. Losing the Gasbuster features is a drawback, but since I live in a non-NFA state, I can't take advantage of them, and for normal shooting the Permatex mod works just as well. While we're on the subject of charging handles, I'd like to point out that the OBR's is a bit harder to actuate, especially with the RISR installed. The additional resistance from the RISR Spring plus the narrow latch on the PRI made it harder to cycle and actuate with my offside hand. This is not helped by the undersized latch found on both the KAC and PRI Gasbuster style charging handles.

This brings us lastly to the barrels. The SR25's is a 16 inch, 1 in 11 twist barrel with a 0.725 in diameter in front of the gas block, and 0.875 in diameter under the hand guards. The OBR has an 18 inch, 1 in 11.25 twist barrel with a 0.725 inch diameter in front of the gas block. Under the hand guards, it's a much thinner (~0.750) diameter, which should account for most of the weight difference between the two. If I have one major complaint about the SR25EC, it's the barrel profile. While I'd like to see it slightly lighter under the handguards, as per Kevin Boland, KAC's Director of Military Operations, the choice of profiles on the EC/ER was to improve accuracy, and reduce manufacturing costs. The profile is the same as the M-110, while the ECC/EMC/M110K/M110K2 share a different profile, are chrome lined, and are dimpled.
The OBR uses a barrel made from LW50 steel, on a Lothar Walther blank. The SR25EC uses a 5R barrel, presumably made in house at KAC. Both are sub-MOA capable, as the test targets attest. (OBR printing a 0.988 inch group with federal 175 GMM, the SR25 edging it slightly with a 0.9 inch 'Winchester Match' group)

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble a bit, so I'll provide the cliff's notes and add in more later.

OBR:

Pros: Well balanced, well made. Feels lighter than it is. Good track record for reliability and accuracy. Excellent choice for a long range, precision 7.62 gasser.

Cons: 20 MOA top rail pretty much requires the use of a PRS or RISR, and makes close in shooting require careful optic/mount selection to ensure enough internal adjustment to compensate. Fore end may limit accessory options, Charging handle needs a bigger latch. Long lead time (7 months.)

Changes I'd like to see: Add a provision to replace the 20 MOA upper rail with a 0 or 10 MOA unit at time of order. Add in the capability to mount a sling at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions on the hand guard just in front of the receiver.


SR25 EC:

Pros: Good layout, very well made, excellent choice for a short to mid range rifle.
Cons: Aside from minor issues like the sling mounts, and the charging handle, the only real complaint I have is the barrel profile.
Changes I'd like to see: Switching to a .775 or .750 profile under the hand guards would shave 7 to 9 ounces off the weight, vastly improving the handling and balance of the rifle. Add in an integrated QD socket on the rail at the 3 and 9 o'clock positions like the AR15 URX2's.

This pretty much concludes my comparison. I will be running the SR25, and will be updating this thread periodically with my progress, round counts, and results. Please feel free to email or PM with any specific questions or if you'd like additional information.

Additionally, I'd like to provide some update information on the various range trips I've had with the SR25EC. Its digested everything I've run down the bore so far, mostly some 1971 head stamped FN M80 ball. Accuracy is ~1.5 MOA with this load, iron sights, and the biggest problem to the accurate shooting equation, me. Waiting on the Mark 6 1-6X with a 7.62 CMR-W ret to release, and I'll get to some serious attempts to shoot for accuracy.

IMAG0206.jpg


Rifle has been updated with a BCM Gunfighter Mark 4, with the Permatex modification. Works well, no issues to report. The LMT SOPMOD has been substituted with a Magpul STR, which is slightly heavier, and shifts the balance back towards the rear slightly, improving the balance.
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

Kranzy,

Thank you very much for such an informative, unbiased, review. To my knowledge, it is the only review between these 2 systems that exists to the degree of detail that you have provided. This should be standard reading for anyone who is seriously considering either system. In the end, it appears that both the OBR and the SR25 EC are both excellent systems. Thanks again for taking the time and patience to plot out the various differences/similarities between the two.

However, I do have one final question as a current owner of the OBR (and future owner of an SR 25) which is: How does KAC's 2 stage trigger compare to the Geissele in the OBR?

Aloha
 
Re: An Enginerd's look at the SR 25 EC

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falsecrack</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Kranzy,

However, I do have one final question as a current owner of the OBR (and future owner of an SR 25) which is: How does KAC's 2 stage trigger compare to the Geissele in the OBR?

</div></div>

It depends on which Geissele trigger you have installed. The example I have has a very similar first stage, but a longer, slightly heavier, and a slightly grittier feeling second stage compared to the SSA I have in my 5.56 rifle. However, I think the grittiness is because I haven't shot the KAC Trigger (~120 rds) near as much as I have the SSA, (~1500 rds, and god only knows how much dry firing.) so the fine tool marks on the sear surfaces haven't had a chance to polish each other out. Ask me again when I've got 500 or 1k down the tube.

Eventually, I'll probably replace the trigger with a Geissle DMR unit, for no other reason than to have the same trigger in all of my AR style rifles. But for now, the KAC is perfectly acceptable.