Jump to content

Talk:SR-25

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merger

[edit]

I'm in favor. DocWatson42 23:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, and also United States Navy Mark 11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System Pete.Hurd 02:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also in favor.65.9.252.XX

Against. The Mk11Mod0 is not an SR-25, but a heavily modified/accurized derivative. Kythri 06:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether the two are synonymous, but whether they two topics are so closely related that they would benefit from a unified exposition. The lead sentence of the United States Navy Mark 11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System article says it is "based around the highly accurate Knight's Armament Company SR-25 semiautomatic rifle" which leads me to think that a proper understanding of the "United States Navy Mark 11 Mod 0 Sniper Weapon System" requires having read the SR-25 article. If this is so, then I think they ought to be merged. Pete.Hurd 20:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Ford Explorer and the Mercury Mountaineer are virtually identical vehicles, yet each have their seperate page. The AR-15 derives from the AR-10, as does the SR-25, yet they have their own articles. Merging them doesn't really benefit anyone. As for reading the SR-25 article, that's why Wikilinks are encouraged. Kythri 17:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability?

[edit]

This is a "dirty gas" system rifle, like the M16 that killed many GIs in Vietnam. Considering the lotsa powder in a 7.62x51 cartridge, there will be much residue and the auto mecahnism will jam. The Dragunov is based on the AK47's remote gas piston system where gunsmoke dirt cannot get into the mechanism, so it is very reliable. I have doubts if the SR-25 will function reliably enough so that the marksmen will not need a separate PDW for back-up. Anyobody with real-world info willing to write up? 195.70.32.136 10:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your premise is completely incorrect, as it wrongly assumes all Stoner AR direct impingement gas system designs must be alike in sensitivity to fouling, regardless of caliber. Had you read the history of the AR-10, you would have realized that the original Artillerie Inrichtingen-made 7.62x51 mm NATO AR (Armalite AR-10) also uses the Stoner gas system, predates the Colt 5.56 mm M-16/AR-15 by several years, and has an independent history of being quite reliable in the field, including combat service in humid African jungle and savannah. As one user in the Congo stated: "It was a good combat weapon that never failed me; a bit too long (but not as bad as the FAL or M-14) for house-to-house work or really heavy brush, but great for 400-800 meters, in the flats - and really nice on the body, after wandering around 12-14 hours looking for bad guys."
Your critique also wrongly assumes that gas fouling due to design fault was the reason for the early Vietnam-era malfunctions of the M16 - it wasn't. A lack of a chromed chamber and a change in propellant specifications (combined with a failure to clean the rifle in a humid environment) actually caused the problem. The original problematic Vietnam-era M16 had no chromed chamber (unlike the AR-10, M14, or AK-47) and when it wasn't cleaned and oiled the chamber rusted; when it rusted it caused cartridges to stick in the chamber - the EXACT same thing happened to the BAR during the Pacific battles of WWII when improperly maintained by its users, but of course no one faults the BAR! Stoner had not chromed the rifle's bore or chamber because no ready-available commercial bore plating process was known at the time that could accomodate 5.56 mm size bores. The Army decided to forego the process on the issue M16. Having made this critical decision, and despite the Army's institutional experience of prior Pacific WWII experience, Ordnance unaccountably failed to either issue cleaning equipment and supplies, or train soldiers to clean their new rifles on a daily basis when serving in a humid jungle environment. Fouling in the Stoner gas system was exacerbated by the Army's unforseen change in ammunition propellant (against the advice of the designer). Combine this with a complete lack of issued cleaning equipment or an enforced regular schedule of weapons cleaning (as taught by all major armies), and you have a predictable disaster. It didn't have to happen - the first combat users of the Armalite AR-15/Colt M16 were U.S. Rangers and Special Forces in Vietnam, as well as the British SAS in Borneo. They used the Armalite/Colt in combat with complete success, mainly because these users cleaned their rifles with regularity and used original-specification 5.56 mm ammunition. Just as one final observation, I'll add that in the rush to equip the troops with the M16, some quantities of early 5.56mm M193 ammunition sent to Vietnam were distributed that were found to lack the required annealing of the cartridge casings, resulting in sticking cartridges and more stoppages (as late as 1968, these defective cartridge lots were still being discovered in ammo dumps in South Vietnam).
As to the original 7.62 mm A.I. AR-10 used in Sudan, Portuguese Africa and Timor, and other combat zones, the inertia of larger and heavier moving parts, larger orifices, standardized NATO ammunition, and adjustable gas system of the original AR-10 made for a very reliable weapon, with the exception of the aluminum magazines, which were fragile - designed by ArmaLite to be disposable once emptied in combat. It is unfortunate that in copying the magazine design, the SR-25 copied the one real weakness of the original AR-10. Also, since the SR-25 was not based on the original combat-proven ArmaLite/A.I. AR-10, but is instead an upscaled derivative of the AR-15A2/M16A2 (60% of parts are completely interchangeable with the M-16A2), it is possible that the SR-25 may suffer teething troubles in the field from breakage of parts that should really have been made larger and stronger (as was done on the new ArmaLite AR-10B series), or as a consequence of simply being a brand-new engineering effort tooled up from a smaller-caliber weapon. However, these problems have NOTHING to do with the basic reliability of the Stoner 7.62mm AR gas system, which is a demonstrably proven one.Dellant (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fouling is neglible for sniper rifles, because the sniper will fire only relatively few rounds on a mission. M16 and similar systems suffer so much from fouling because the soldiers pump out hundreds of rounds without cleaning the rifle. So that's not really a problem for the SR-25 in real life. Still, cleaning this one will be as much of a pain as with the M4 or M16. --84.57.77.37 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid the kind of mistakes I just corrected

[edit]

MOA is independent of distance and at realistic ranges equals approximately: cluster diameter in inches divided by range in hundreds of yards

1" @ 100 yds = 2" @ 200 yds = 9" @ 900 yds = 1 MOA

3" @ 200 yds = 6" @ 400 yds = 9" @ 600 yds = 1.5 MOA

This is not a perfectly accurate definition, since 1 minute of arc actually equals 1.0471975511966 inches at 100 yards, but again, at realistic ranges the difference is negligible. At ranges greater than a quarter mile, a snake fart halfway down range (or in fact your own pulse) is going to contribute more to your loss of accuracy than the MOA discrepancy expressed in the above heuristic. To say nothing of the thousand or two people in the world that can consistently hit a target at that range. FBI sharpshooters only get a 200-yard practice range, and the FBI has more stringent accuracy requirements than the US Army, and I'll tell you right now that they're not consistently shooting 2" clusters to the end of that range. Maybe Super Dave can.

Nobody short of a trick shooter needs rifle performance better than 2 MOA, and for game hunting (you guys aren't terrorists, right?) even that borders on extreme overkill, since it represents someone who wants to be 300 yards away from their 6" killzone targets.

--76.223.221.122 01:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not as tricky as you think at least not at 200 yards with the right equipment. At any rate, there is a good article on this at Minute of angle for future reference. Re "need" Varmint hunting frequently encounters greater distances than 200 yards with targets less than 8 inches tall. Arthurrh 01:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real World vs. Fiction

[edit]

This rifle is very popular in Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six games:

"KAC SR25K-SP Widow Maker - Suppressed - 7.62x51mm NATO - 700 RPM - The SR25K is the carbine version of the popular SR25 Match rifle. It retains almost all of the accuracy of its larger sibling, yet it is roughly the size of a CAR15. The addition of a suppressor gives the powerful SR25K a reputation as a "Widowmaker", at least for its targets. Tactics: High power and suppressed. Good for stealthy medium range engagements when high power is needed. It is not intended as a sniper rifle and doesn't do very well at long range. 1x red dot scope.

"KAC SR25K-SD Widow Maker - Suppressed/Subsonic - .338 Whisper - USA - 700 RPM - While subsonic loadings for pistol/SMG cartridges are fairly common, loading a rifle cartridge to subsonic velocities is typically an exercise in futility. The cases are typically too large allowing the powder charge to move around leading to inconsistent ignition, velocities, and accuracy. If these problem can be licked, there generally isn't enough gas pressure to function a gas-operated repeater.

"J.D. Jones, the intrepid owner of SSK Industries, took a different approach for his Whisper series. He decided to use shorter cartridge cases that still fit the breechfaces of common automatic weapons. For the .338 Whisper, the parent case is the 7mm Remington Benchrest, which shares the same case head diameter as the 7.62x51mm NATO. The reduction in case length allows the use of long ogive bullets like the .338" 300gr Sierra MatchKing for the subsonic loadings. With the high ballistic coefficient, the projectile loses very little of its already low velocity. It also results in rather nasty terminal effects as the long projectile is prone to tumble upon impact with flesh.

"However, that's not all: The cartridge fits and feeds from standard 7.62x51mm NATO magazines with only minor modification, and J.D. can provide upper receiver units that will fit onto AR10/SR25 lower receivers. These will even function in full-automatic fire with or without a suppressor attached. Thus the user can switch back and forth between his SR25K upper receiver and the SSK .338 Whisper upper receiver depending upon the mission requirements.

"Tactics: This weapon is Rainbow's nasty little secret. A special combination of components put together by Rainbow's own armorer resulting in a very quiet, yet very powerful assault rifle. Its only drawback is it's weight and handling. The ammo is heavy; add in the suppressor, and you've got the heaviest of the assault rifles. However, its weight and the .338 Whisper round, which is much lower in power than the 7.62x51mm that the weapon was designed for, means that it's recoil is superb. Once the dot is on the target you are in business. 1x red dot scope."

I wonder if any of this is true. Can the SR-25 take these mods and make them workable. For example, if the full-auto mod is possible, doesn't that make the SR-25 very vulnerable to the fouling mentioned above? -158.96.4.13 (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the weapons configurations described were created solely in the imaginations of the developers of the NATO-series game modifications for the Rainbow Six series. While the configurations did not exist at the time (late-'90s), they were considered technically feasible, and were added solely for gameplay. Ten years later, the SR-25 series is still not available as a full auto. The original SR-25K was a limited production semi-auto carbine, but was never officially marketed as the "Widowmaker". The most recent carbine variant offered by KAC was actually called the "Battle Rifle". SSK now offers AR-10 conversions to the .338 Whisper; so it is conceivable that they could also convert a SR-25 if you offered them enough money. (And before anyone asks: the G36 variant in 7.62 NATO was imaginary as well.) --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"NATO-series game modifications"? Spartan198 (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mod 1 and Mod 2 variants of the Mk 11

[edit]

FWIW: Judging from posted solicitations, the USMC and USN Mk 11 Mod 0 are going to be replaced by (or updated to) the Mod 1 and Mod 2 configuration, respectively. (The USMC was originally going to drop the Mod 1 for the USN's Mod 2, but it looks like they may have reversed themselves.) --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the page had some insight on these variants as well. The Mod 1, from what I've been able to gather from pics on the Internet, is just the coupling of an M110 upper receiver assembly with the lower receiver assembly of a Mod 0, which would essentially make it an M110 (albeit black, as that's what color they are in most of the pics) without the length-adjustable buttstock. The Mod 2 has proven to be much more elusive and all I've found about it is that it's a US Navy/USSOCOM version "similar" to the M110, but similar how or how it differs, I've never found a clear answer. Spartan198 (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevancy

[edit]

"Note that the KAC SR-25, which is the basis of the Mk 11 Mod 0 system, is different from the M21 Sniper Rifle used for a time by USSOCOM. Although they both fire match grade 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition, the M21 is a modified, accurized M14, while the KAC SR-25 is essentially a derivative of the Armalite AR-10, the predecessor to the AR-15 and M16 family of assault rifles."

Is the above bit about the SR-25 and M21 being different at all relevant to to this article? Spartan198 (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, no?? Don't know why that was added. Removing it.— DanMP5 04:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

The Impact Guns link now leads to a 404 error page. Can someone find the new link? Juranas (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British adoptip

[edit]

someones added taht the uk have adoped the sr-25 with a link to an article. obviously they havent read the article properly, otherwise they wouldve noticed that they havent


[1]

This si the rifle theyve adopted,its a different but similarly designed model, of similar origin, but NOT an Sr-25. its made by a different company. I'll remove the british army from the list of users —Preceding unsigned comment added by TOMNORTHWALES (talk • contribs) 14:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between it and the AR-10?

[edit]

I'd like to see more here on what distinguishes it from the AR-10. Faceless Enemy (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about internally, but the receiver design differs from the AR-10. [2] Spartan198 (talk) 01:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ar-10.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Ar-10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Knight's Armament Company SR-25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Knight's Armament Company SR-25. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit

[edit]

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale was: "Trim infobox: list of wars is non-informative; rm nn variants. Rm uncited users". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SR-25&oldid=1212525559"