Project Hunter; New UK Ranger Regiment KAC Rifles

[JSGlock34]

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about the SR15E3. This post by Trey Knight is about a decade old, but I think it offers a lot of insight into what's behind the rifle's design.

Any gun is as good as the weakest part of that gun. Cost has to be factored in . If a gun costs 3 times as much as another but lasts only twice as long is it better. The biggest problem with the entire M4 world is that gun is a compromise. The gun and round (M855) were originally designed around a 18" bbl platform. The gas system,buffer tube bolt, everything. When we compromised the design by hacking off the bbl and buffer tube things got funny. We(industry) have been trying to fix this compromise of Stoner's design since it occurred. We have tried boosters,buffers,rubber bumpers, rocket wire extractor springs, pistons, dual extractor springs, you name it. Most of the developments that became the M4 actually came out of a tanker gun program. The M4 was about as right as we could get it at the time. For procurement logistics and other reasons the design was frozen at this point. Can we (industry) make a better gun than a M4? Perhaps but probably not for the same dollar and 100% parts commonality. As I stated a gun is as good as its weakest link and the weakest link in 16" and under short gas system guns is the extractor . I would say it is a 3000 round life cycle. If I can change this $5 part on schedule then there should not be a problem. If I can't then that $5 part could cause my entire rifle to be useless and as a soldier or someone else who depends on their rifle this way this $5 part could cost them their life. The next point of failure would perhaps be the bolt. I'm not going to quote life cycle here because it is a not totally agreed on subject but with suppressor use it is certainly more limited. Last is the bbl. A hammer forged chrome lined bbl is going to last longer than other types of bbls. It may or may not be as accurate but when improperly maintained a HF CL bbl will beat out all others period. I am going to call the life cycle of a good HF CL bbl to be 20,000 rounds. There are certainly reports of them lasting shorter under heavier firing schedules, and it won't explode at this point but the accuracy will start to deteriorate at this point.

KAC has tried to build a rifle that all the parts will last the full 20,000 rounds. Zero parts replacement. The downside is it costs more and lack of parts compatibility .

The bottom line as I have said before the Mil spec requirement is certainly there for a reason. It is possible to build a gun that will perform better than a mil-spec gun that may not meet the requirement. Many people claiming Mil-spec may not actually meet that requirement for something as obscure as ISO certification.

There are so many good choices out there in the AR world. So many good companies doing innovative stuff. I would hate to see industry not advance the AR design because we are held to trying to just build mil-spec guns.

At what point does a gun not become an AR anymore? We all know that the non-full curve magazine is a weak link. Would you guys be willing to throw all your mags away in order to achieve a higher level of reliability? We (US gov't) were not willing to take that step with the SCAR.

Just some thoughts ;sorry for a rambling post , it is not meant to be a rant.

[Tokarev]

[Sensei]

There is a Kevin Owens podcast were Kevin describes why he doesn't care for KAC. Kevin ran weapons development and procurement for SOCOM. He said KAC sent top quality guns for evaluation but then poor quality guns after winning a contract.

I suspect/wonder if that is carry over from our experience with the M110 system during OEF/OIF. I believe that I’ve posted about this here or on a similar forum dedicated to the M4 family of rifles. I was assigned to CJTF 82nd in ‘09 that was responsible for most (if not all) of Eastern Afghanistan - known as RC-East as I recall. My infantry battalion’s sniper section had 4 M110 systems along with several Barrett M82s, M24 variants, and a few of the Sage EBRs based on the M14. I recall discussing these systems with a NCO sniper who told me that all 4 of the M110s were down and our BN was exclusively using the EBRs as a very effective stopgap. I recall the number being 4 because he told me that all 4 rifles had to be sent back CONUS; there was no armorer support in theater at the time. That seemed less than ideal and stuck with me.

A couple of years later, Ft. Benning hosted a “best sniper” competition in the early Fall open to military and LE teams. They probably still host it, but my last year in Columbus was 2011. Again, this was more than a decade ago, but I recall the Larue OBR being vastly over-represented and the M110 being referred to as a handicap.

While I’m generally a KAC whore with multiple copies of the SR15 E3, I have no illusions that a system using a proprietary bolt can be a big disadvantage on a foreign battlefield littered with AR15 pattern weapons. Having said that, I’m staring at this SR15/LMT MRP hybrid as I type this and thinking that is one of the best expressions of the AR ever built (KAC trigger and fully ambi lower, LMT enhanced bolt carrier assembly compatible with other carriers in a pinch), monolithic rail, user barrel swaps, sub 1MOA accuracy, etc.):

[TGS]

I've talked to several special agents from the USSS that have had their KAC SR16s double rounds upon pulling the trigger, almost as if the gun was designed with a binary trigger. Apparently, it's an issue that is known but largely going unaddressed.

Hopefully KAC has rectified that bit for this contract.

[RAM Engineer]

I've talked to several special agents from the USSS that have had their KAC SR16s double rounds upon pulling the trigger, almost as if the gun was designed with a binary trigger. Apparently, it's an issue that is known but largely going unaddressed.

Hopefully KAC has rectified that bit for this contract.

There was an issue with early Daniel Defense guns doing that. I had not one, but two that did. But that was a long time ago. I would *hope* KAC wouldn't make QC errors like that.

[Failure2Stop]

Wow, it’s been a while.
I’ll drop in when I have a minute to address comments.

[Failure2Stop]

There is a Kevin Owens podcast were Kevin describes why he doesn't care for KAC. Kevin ran weapons development and procurement for SOCOM. He said KAC sent top quality guns for evaluation but then poor quality guns after winning a contract.

Chad Albrecht (School of the American Rifle) in a physical inspection of a KAC bolt described the benefits of the design of bolt lugs. Chad said he has never heard of a KAC bolt shearing a lug. Then went on to say if you or anyone know anyone who sheared a KAC bolt lug to let him know. My son (currently deployed overseas) has been on the lookout for a KAC SR15. I mentioned this to a friend and how I had recently seen the School of the American Rifle youTube video about the KAC bolt. My friend laughed. He told me he had sheared a lug off his KAC15's bolt and named a mutual friend who had done the same.

Maybe ju,st maybe these unobtainum unicorns are more hype than actual performance! I told my son to buy a Colt, BCM, Sons or similar quality rifle and put the rest into ammo.

Kevin Owens can have whatever opinion that he wants to hold about KAC, but what KAC was doing in 2001 is way different than what we're doing in 2023. If you want to go back and step through the Mk 11 and M110, I can do that, but there isn't much to say other than "KAC was the only gun a the time that met the requirement", and those guns demonstrably met requirements throughout their contract life. We have implemented in-house developed Engineering Change Proposals (ECPs) a few times through the years, for no reason other than to make the gun better. The Army didn't ask for them, SOCOM didn't ask for them, and neither of them paid for them; it was just the right thing to do, so we did it and sent them in for approval. One looming issue with everything we try to do with the M110 is controlled by the Performance Specification MIL-PRF-32316 w/ Amd 1, which has a bunch of poorly worded requirements that limit what we can do, such as the adjustable buttstock.

I have personally run every single submission for the past 8 years, including MRGG and PIC, and the systems that we deliver on those contracts out-perform the bid and trial samples. We have worked with numerous government agencies to build and deliver non-standard and experimental items. We have an exceptionally low product deficiency quality deficiency report (PQDR) findings. We deliver products that meet requirements on schedule.

Do bolts break? Yes. KAC's position with the E2 bolt was that if someone had a physical failure of the bolt under 20,000 rounds, we would replace it. We did have some bolts break early due to a manufacturing tolerance error, and those bolts were replaced at no cost, but those were not the commercial E3 bolt. I have not seen a commercial E3 bolt break before 20,000 rounds, and that includes rifles that experienced case-head failures and obstructed bore conditions. 2 years ago we made the E3.2 dual-ejector bolt with improved design features that have proven to exceed even the life of the E3 bolt. This evidence was supplied by second and third-party testers. I would be very interested in seeing your friend's bolt. Without knowing more I cannot comment.

Is it hype?
I guess it comes down to what you want, what you need, and what you're willing to pay. When all is said and done and the data is on the table, these is absolutely a point of diminishing return on investment. Is a Daniel Defense DD4 R3 twice as good as a Colt 6920? That all depends on the use. KAC is not a assembler that can just reach out and buy stuff from other manufacturers. Pretty much the only parts that we don't make in-house on our 5.56 rifles is the bolt carrier itself and small parts like pins and springs. There are very few parts that can be farmed out for several reasons. When it really comes down to it, 50% of the US commercial carbine market would be just as happy with an airsoft gun, because they barely get shot, and come nowhere near the life consumption of even a low-cost but generally ok rifle such as a S&W. Unless they have a purpose, they just don't get shot much. So much of the US commercial carbine market is a race to the bottom; what are the lowest cost commonly sourced components that can be put together with a minimal amount of skill and quality control and still generally work? That's not KAC's approach, and that's not the market that we are in.

There are many very good rifle manufacturers in the US right now. You really have to go out of your way to find a truly bad AR unless you're trying to get one for the price of a Glock. BCM, Colt, and SOLGW are fine manufacturers, and I have recommended them to others in the past. But I can also say that if you want the most durable, most reliable, and most tested 5.56 AR in the world, it says "Knight's" on the side. That's what the UK wanted, and I am honored to have been in a position to do that.

[Failure2Stop]

I've talked to several special agents from the USSS that have had their KAC SR16s double rounds upon pulling the trigger, almost as if the gun was designed with a binary trigger. Apparently, it's an issue that is known but largely going unaddressed.

Hopefully KAC has rectified that bit for this contract.

Triggers open up a whole host of potential issues. We have customers that have been getting different items from us over many years, so sometimes it's hard to know what topic is being covered.
I can say with 100% certainty that our triggers passed all testing, and that an issue was brought up to us about being able to engage the safety with the bolt partially retracted that could lead to hammer drop, and while that process is self-caused, we did change the trigger design to prevent that from being possible. So, to be clear: a problem that was caused by solving a stoppage incorrectly, with a trigger that has been accepted by every major governmental organization in the US and numerous international users that is performing exactly as designed and in accordance with the handling and manipulation processes as they existed, resulted NOT in us arguing about it, but rather changed the design at no cost and implemented it across the product line.

As far as doubling, I haven't seen that on our trigger, and have not received any reports of that. Maybe an old trigger that's out of adjustment?

[TGS]

Triggers open up a whole host of potential issues. We have customers that have been getting different items from us over many years, so sometimes it's hard to know what topic is being covered.

...

As far as doubling, I haven't seen that on our trigger, and have not received any reports of that. Maybe an old trigger that's out of adjustment?

These were field office agents, not CAT. You'd know better on the date of general adoption, but I believe those rifles shouldn't be more than a few years old.

[Failure2Stop]

These were field office agents, not CAT. You'd know better on the date of general adoption, but I believe those rifles shouldn't be more than a few years old.

There were 2 generations of rifles that could be in those positions.
Regardless, if they are having any issue they should be in touch with the RTC folks, as they have the equipment, parts, knowledge, and tasking to address any failures.
Alternately, they can contact me and I can link them up.