Well what ever you are doing is working well
- Thread starter ut755ln
- Start date
Presuming these were tested with all the standard NATO rounds. Is there any particular (standard) loads they shoot best suppressed/not suppressed?
Will you be running this gun at the quantified performance finale?
Glad to have you on the forum @Jack_L
I own a KAC SR25 CC - the favorite firearm I own - in part due to reading your posts on m4carbine.net and ar15.com over the years. There are a number of other sr25 and sr15 owners on this site, too. Welcome aboard!
I own a KAC SR25 CC - the favorite firearm I own - in part due to reading your posts on m4carbine.net and ar15.com over the years. There are a number of other sr25 and sr15 owners on this site, too. Welcome aboard!
Thanks for chiming in! I got a question: What factors have to be considered when designing a dimpled barrel if the goal is longevity and accuracy? What are the tradeoffs with the KS1 vs if it had a non-dimpled barrel?
The first time I'd seen a dimpled barrel was on a joint project that Knight's did with Nighthawk a long time ago (I think you all called it golfball texturing or something).
Also, I saw some "DIY" dimpling at a factory tour where the warranty department replaced the barrels on a large frame after the owner "ruined" the rifles performance by dimpling the barrels (the actual work looked very clean and well executed to my untrained eye).
Just found an old AR15.com thread from 2006 talking about KAC getting the contract for the M110. Most estimates for the package were from 10K to 16K.
I'm not linking it. you all can google it.
I'm not linking it. you all can google it.
What a great question!
I have been really enjoying my 16" 6.5 Creedmoor, but I have indeed considered shooting it at the finale. Regardless, I'll have it with me if you want to try it out.
A central requirement of Project Hunter was minimal shift following extended duration firing. We initially used a thin profile barrel, virtually identical to our 14.5" barrel, and while it met the requirement the follow-up was "can it be better?". The answer was yes, but that would require additional thermal mass in the barrel, which means more steel and weight. The ball mill dimpling process has been done here at KAC for around 15 years, with the primary purpose being weight reduction without shift as the barrel heats up.
The increased surface area will contribute to faster cooling, but it's not really a significant change as the surface area increase isn't really that drastic.
I have seen some barrels that were dimpled outside of the factory that did have their performance degraded, but a lot of those were our thinner profile barrels that really should not have been dimpled to start with.
Do you have a picture of the KS1 barrel without the rail/handguard?
And is it a .750 gas block??
Don't have any barrel pics image hosted for sharing on forum formats, sorry.
It does use a .750 journal, with our Mod 2 gas system.
You can upload pics straight to this site if you have them.. don't have to use a hosting service..
I went back through what I have for pictures and we don't really have just the barrel. Is there something specific that you're curious about?
Just wanted to see what the barrel contour looked like..
It's basically a straight 0.98 from the barrel extension to the gas block.
People who say this kind of shit don't know the history of the platform, what was arround, how it evolved and how we got to where we are today. Its pure ignorance
Many of the standard features on quality AR's today are the results of KAC and Stoner collaboration, not to mention KAC R&D over the last 30 years.
They are the tip of the spear, and the platform was developed with assistance from the tip of the spear in the .mil.
The M110 shit is well documented, hard to blame KAC for idiot army officers.
The older SR-25 and MK11 blew away everything else out there. Comparing a gun from 20 years ago to modern AR's that have the befit of companies like KAC putting Millions into R&D to come up with more refinements is intellectually dishonest.
Anyone who has been to the KAC compound can quickly understand. That place is more like a college than a factory. Its massive.
KAC's problem has always been production. I don't get it, they need to put out 10 times as many rifles and cans as they do. The demand is there, they have the infrastructure to do it. They have skilled workforce in that area (its near cape Canaveral with all the NASA contractors) Yet shit just trickles out and prices get insane due to supply/demand. Maybe Reed and Trey are more concerned with growing the tank collection (one of the biggest private tank collections in the world) than building more guns.
I now understand why so many people have you on ignore. Its almost like you repeated exactly what i said and added some random bs in. Sure the m110 has history and was the best of its time but its a relic now. New sr25s out perform them. Also im sure you know exactly how knights runs, what works for them, what theyre intentions are. Since you know exactly how they could be doing better, why not make them a offer they cant refuse and buy them the fuck out. Btw high secondary market prices doesnt line their pockets, just the person who bought it at the standard price
Last edited:
I am not being difficult when I ask this, what have they done in terms of innovation that has trickled down to other ARs over the last thirty years?
Not who you asked, but there certainly have been a lot of Sand Cutter carrier copycats suddenly made by reputable manufacturers in the last few months.
You are still off base.
The M110 was never the best of its time. In fact, there were vastly superior KAC large frame ARs before and after it that would run circles around it. The problem was contracting requirements being written, selected and administered by fucking retards. I spent a good portion of my career when I wasn't in uniform, writing those contract requirements, awarding those contracts, and than administering and closing out those contracts. Its a classic example of the gov designing something and forcing industry to comply vs coming up with performance requirements and letting industry innovate and come up with a superior solution.
Just a few things from the M110 that were dogshit, KAC argued against ( @Jack_L can back me up if he wants, I had long convos with Kevin Bolland back when he worked for KAC):
-Suppressor design was horrific, KAC wanted a more traditional can but the army wanted a reflux suppressor to try and keep OAL down. They were spoiled by the Ops inc can on the mk12 and thought that was what they needed. The can would heat up, was not great with backpressure and would drift. Talking to a few B4's at the time, they much preferred to shoot the rifle without the can. It was more accurate.
-The buttstock was also dogshit. They envisioned this rifle to either replace or supplement the m24, which was just dumb. The LOP was still way too long for alot of smaller statured shooters, especially if they had to wear body armor. Even when they went to a minimalist plate carrier for some units, it was still too long, especially for unconventional shooting positions. They should have slapped a SOPMOD on there and let guys pick the stock they wanted to run.
- There were issues with bolt breakages, trigger failures, safety failing, ect. Before the contract was awarded, KAC had a bunch of PIP (product improvement plan) to solve alot of the issues that were forced on them by big army.
Our very own @sinister posted over a decade ago on M4carbine about it (https://www.m4carbine.net/archive/index.php/t-137240.html):
"I know the fella who wrote the requirements doc. He wasn't a sniper nor an infantryman.
He ignored the input of the Infantry Sniper School, SOTIC, and the USAMU.
The 100 rounds comes from a standard basic load (one mag in the rifle, two in 2-mag pouches on either hip or on a chest rig). Shouldn't have been (or be) too hard. The sniper was/is not expected to have to carry an M110 AND an M4.
Lake Shitty's M118LR quality control has been in the toilet for a few years now and is the reason SOCOM specified Mark 316 Mod 0 (basically the same 175-grain 7.62 Match King round but with a clearly-specified precision standard)."
Had the army just listened to the experts and manufacture about what needed to be done to get the rifle where it needed to be, I am confident it would still be fielded today and the M110A1 would still be a KAC product, if it even happened. The commercial guns at the time would run circles around the M110 and SMU's who had ran the SR-25 since the 90's and helped developed it, were already running the latest greatest K1 and other variants that had features you are seeing on the commercial guns today.
Now to the other shit you said:
I never said I know how to run shit better than they do. I just said they need to increase production because demand has been insane for over 10 years. Even back in the day, getting a SR15 (I have a couple of them) was hard and you had to get lucky with timing. KAC has always put military and LE customers first and I am sure a big part of their production runs are still going that way. It just seems like they have never really increased throughput after all these years. I was at KAC HQ 2 years ago right as they were opening the new showroom. There was a Mclaren dealership on their campus, Lawmans has always been there, the tank collection and I am sure a bunch of other really cool shit. It would be nice if they could increase production and get more stuff out.
High secondary prices absolutley do effect them. They know due to demand everything they make will be sold within a few days of hitting the shelf. They can pick and choose vintage releases (ask @MSTN about how things like the MP5 rail prices fluctuate between production runs) to maximize profit. Its possible they purposly slow roll product to keep prices and demand high.
Just off the top of my head:
-E3 bolt is most reliable bolt ever made, still have not heard of a breakage after all these years. Typical MPI USGI bolt lasts between 15-30K before the lugs start shearing off.
-One of the first good 2 stage triggers in an AR. Early design had issues, was replaced by G high speed then KAC came out with refined 2 stage in mid 00's that is stellar.
-Ambi lower, first to do it.
-Tuned Gas system. Everyone else was running carbine and new at the time middy gas systems. Due to shitty manufacturing and tolerances most AR's were way overgassed to ensure they would run when adverse. KAC was the first to tune a gas system to M193/M885 to keep recoil down, while helping to save parts from premature failure.
- Bunch of other shit i cant remember.
Pretty much the entire large frame AR development is thanks to KAC. They were pretty much the pioneers of everything and it was the first gun that was reliable enough for combat. A bunch of large frame companies came and went and were sold off in that time. Eugene stoner, who invented the Ar15, worked with KAC to develop and refine the SR-25 that was picked up by SOCOM in the 90s and evolved from there. Larry Vickers has a great video about the history of the gun and their collaboration with delta refining it.
wipe your lips please
true that, he's 'that guy' and self professed know it all. I usually ignore him, glad to see I'm not alone
Everything I will say below is only a historical context, not to be misconstrued as a KAC fanboy. It’s just what happened chronologically to the best of my memory having lived through it all:
* One of the biggest things was actually bringing an AR-10 type rifle to the market in the late 1980s-early 1990s, since the only thing you could get up through the 1980s were Dutch ArmaLite parts kits built on weird lowers that were not like the originals, no parts support really. The Dutch rifles are awesome, but haven’t been manufactured since the early 1960s, and none were for US contracts. Most/all were select-fire as well. The SR-25 series was a big deal for the US civilian and military SOF markets initially. It broke the ice on a mental dam that a lot of people couldn’t wrap their heads around. Once KAC broke through, you saw an initial, 2nd, 3rd, and now 4th wave of copycats in each decade since.
* Rail handguards not only for SR-25s and AR-15s, but for the MP5 and other military contracts. This alone has generated an avalanche sub-industries with endless iterations totaling millions in revenue for scores of companies who followed KAC’s lead.
* Making free-float popular with their designs, initially with fiberglass tubes on the SR-25, then on the Army JSOC Recce guns with the MRE and short free-float quad rails for NSW, then the rifle-length quad rails for NSW, then the Mk.12 Mod 1 rails for the SPR rifles.
* Bringing back chromed bolt carrier groups as a standard with the SR-25, and again with new production SR-15s
* Well-executed aircraft aluminum "single-piece” scope mounts for the SR-25 and AR-15, getting away from the old steel extra-high Leupold and Badger rings clamped onto aluminum uppers. Here is another multi-million dollar market that was spawned and imitated from a laundry list of manufacturers ever since. ArmaLite did theirs not too long after for their post-1996 AR-10s, then JP for the JP-15/AR-15, then everyone else.
* Ambi features for selector, sling swivel sockets, bolt catch, charge handles
* Match triggers for the SR-25 and SR-15/AR-15. I’m not sure who came out first, as there was a Jard trigger around the same time that is really hard to install. Pretty sure KAC had their match trigger in the SR-25 Match Rifle before anyone else though. Then Rock River came out with their 2-stage trigger that wears out quickly with a round count. Geissele came way later. Now it’s another avalanche after-market worth millions upon millions of dollars.
* Suppressor QD features specifically for the SR-25 and AR-15s, both from the original gas block abutment method and the muzzle device QD with the SOPMOD I can
* Rail attachment mounts for weapon lights, Laser Aiming Modules, and other SOPMOD accessories. Again, another multi-million dollar industry, not only for SR-25 and M4A1, but for MP5s and other weapons.
* Rail attach sling mounts
* Night Vision mounts. US DoD and NATO had some really stupid NV mounts prior to KAC, sourced from no-name companies who just made clanky and heavy devices to meet one-way communication contract requirements. KAC worked with and listened to SOF end-users who complained about the old trash, and wanted newer, lightweight, strong, streamlined attachment systems that wouldn’t get hung-up on gear and vehicles.
* Integrated flip-up front sights with rail handguards
* Back-Up Iron Sights as part of SOPMOD, which was in competition with the ARMS options at the time.
* A production Vertical Foregrip that came with RIS/RAS. Original samples were cobbled together quite nicely in SOG, but never produced. Those were cut-down A1 grips bolted to the inside of XM177E2 handguards.
* Rail-attach M203 40mm GL
* Rail-mounted M203 GL leaf sight
* E3 bolt and extension for the SR-15
* Mod 2 sealed gas system
* All kinds of flash hiders and muzzle devices for different weapons
* Suppressors for the Mk.23 and MP5SD
* Clip-on PVS-30 NVD, way better than the SIMRAD before it. If you’ve ever seen or used a SIMRAD, you know what I’m talking about.
I think I could go on and on if I tried to track-down every military unique contract they have had, not only for US DoD, but NATO partner nations. That’s one thing I’ve noticed with KAC, is that they are very responsive to military end-users who need certain problems solved and limited-run production schedules filled as quickly as possible, after dialing-in the design for the customer based on actual testing. That is extremely hard to do. It is a very unique company in that respect, and gives you an idea of why their production capacity is always cranking, even though you’ll probably never see the items they are fulfilling.
Last edited:
KS-1: All the gen on the British Army and Royal Marines' new rifle
We did a question and answer session with the manufacturer of the new KS-1 rifle to find out more
Man you guys get a KAC rep online to speak with and you whip out your dicks and smash them flat with a hammer.
Unsure if he could have spoke freely without upsetting the .gov customers but would have been good to hear some of the “what we wanted to do” over the “what we were asked to do”
Unsure if he could have spoke freely without upsetting the .gov customers but would have been good to hear some of the “what we wanted to do” over the “what we were asked to do”
Last edited:
Are you implying some people might be like Eggnog ans Zit from the Hitch movie?
Disgusting ...
Last edited:
I didn’t gender anybody pal….you fixing to be cancelled with that shit.
It's the internet man, I get it. Makes it hard to have a discussion though, so I just wait to hear from the people that actually want to talk about a subject and interact at that point.
Happy to discuss whatever questions you might have.
I have a couple questions about the SR25s if you dont mind. How are the new kac brakes doing compared to the old MAMS devices? Will a heavy profile dimpled barrel be making a return to future sr25s in 308?
The "new" open/2-port brakes have shown to out-perform the MAMS, though the MAMS does have slightly more recoil reduction and slightly less flash. Their advantage is that they do show overall better dispersion than the MAMS, and cost significantly less, while being a good suppressor mount.
Dimpled barrels will be returning to the line, much like the 22" 6.5 Creedmoor uppers and the small release of 14.5" 6.5 Creedmoor uppers that went out earlier this year.
First, thank you for your expertise contributing to the Hide.
It seems almost impossible to find relevant longer down range target information on the KAC SBR's to judge whether the rifle-operator is
getting the factory expectations from the platform.
I have this SR-25 ACC 14.5" with minor modifications. A few 600 meter target photos.
Did KAC expect a better target impact @ this range?
Thanks.
There is a guy on the site here @TheGerman says there is no difference between an Olympic and a KAC.
Please compare and contrast in 300 words or less…….
Just kidding couldn’t help myself. Thank you for making yourself available and please never abandon the People market.
Excellent info! One last question: why did kac go away from dimples in the first place? Was it a contract requirement? Thanks again for answering our questions and being so straight forward!
Ribbed... for his pleasure.
JK. Jack can correct me if I am wrong but it was a combo of athstetics with the early limited edition guns like the costa/Wilson guns and a way to take some weight out of the barrel while keeping the barrel stiff.
I believe Marvin Pitts would also do ( one of the og kac vendors) the ball milling for guys trying to build clones/replicas.
JK. Jack can correct me if I am wrong but it was a combo of athstetics with the early limited edition guns like the costa/Wilson guns and a way to take some weight out of the barrel while keeping the barrel stiff.
I believe Marvin Pitts would also do ( one of the og kac vendors) the ball milling for guys trying to build clones/replicas.
Did you shoot it unsuppressed?
Dimpled barrels are cool, but they introduce risks and variables. Components used in model lines are based on application. Sometimes a dimpled barrel makes sense, sometimes it doesn't.
Thanks for the clarification Jack.
I always assumed if there was some kind of performance increase, they would have become a standard feature on most of the later SR15/16's and SR25's. Also if an agency wanted them, they could spec it in the contract?
So the dimpling/ball mill cuts are patented/protected? Always wondered why we didn't see other manufactures do it. Seems like a pretty easy and strait forward machining process.
I always assumed if there was some kind of performance increase, they would have become a standard feature on most of the later SR15/16's and SR25's. Also if an agency wanted them, they could spec it in the contract?
So the dimpling/ball mill cuts are patented/protected? Always wondered why we didn't see other manufactures do it. Seems like a pretty easy and strait forward machining process.
My pants are M81 Woodland. U 'mirin?
Hey Jack does the company expect to make a longer barreled 6arc?
It all comes down to cost : performance. There are a lot of things that are an advantage, but the systems just don't get pushed far enough for that performance to be evident or necessary. Sometimes weight is more important than POI shift after 160 rounds. If there was a requirement where a dimpled barrel would be needed/increase competitiveness, yes, it would happen. There are a lot of misconceptions about the dimpling, and throwing it at a product for no reason is just added cost. That said, there are many models that have dimpled barrels in the line-up.
Our product line is directly reflective of current programs, with production oriented to meeting those commitments before anything else. Right now, we are at 16" for 6mm ARC. Between us girls, I'd rather have a 16" 6.5 Creedmoor than an 18" 6mm ARC, but I do understand the interest.
Attachments
lol, that's not a thing. But I appreciate your enthusiasm.
I have not done so yet. I have scoured the internet and have yet to find target examples beyond 200 meter for 14.5" ACC.
I have Applied Ballistics hit-probability given the all the relevant data input, but it is still just a computer model output. My muzzle velocities are
at 2400 fps and AB predicts 1496 fps @ 600 meters, close to trans-sonic.
AB predictions @ 1.0 & 2.0 MOA.......my target looks like an intermediate of ~ 1.5 MOA, as none of my shots were off the target. The 1.5 MOA is more in line with Bryan Litz's discussion on dispersion expectations.
Would really like to see others real target results at this range.
