View Single Post
Old 08-20-2015, 05:40 PM
Agrivere Agrivere is offline
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 17

I can't help but wonder if Mark (and the other folks who came up with this weight limit idea) are aware that Rock River isn't the only manufacturer of National Match rifles (tongue in cheek - I'm sure they are), but more importantly, the RRA barrel has a different/lighter profile than most other barrels on the market.

From Mark's post:
Without carrying handle - 9lbs, 7oz

I have a nearly identical setup, except with a more "common" barrel profile, which I weighed to be 9 lbs, 12 oz, without any sights, no lead, no sling, no magazine, etc. Add an optic (mine all come in around 1 lb, 10 oz on a mount), and my rifle ready to run weighs in at 11 pounds, 7 ounces.

Given that they've only allowed 4 ounces of "fudge factor", and a Kreiger profile barrel weighs roughly 5 ounces more than the RRA barrel does, that's cutting things awfully close.

My real fear, however, is that this weight limit will create an "arms race" of sorts which will benefit nobody. Having a weight limit on the rifle is inherently not a big deal, but with current Service Rifles it's a self limiting activity. The important thing isn't how much they weigh, but that they are properly balanced. The entire reason lead weights are added to current Service Rifles is to offset the weight of the heavy barrel and make them more balanced.

I don't think Service Rifle shooters will accept a rifle that's not balanced the way they want it to be (I know I won't accept such a rifle), so they will be forced to find ways to remove weight from the front so they can add it to the back. How long will it be before folks start turning their float tubes into swiss cheese to remove weight from the front? Carbon Fiber quad rails? Titanium float tubes? How much money will be wasted by folks who now have to have their barrels fluted under the handguard to remove some weight? I have no doubt that all of these things will be done in order to properly balance an 11.5 lb. Service Rifle.

It's a process which benefits nobody other than the folks who get paid to flute barrels and make carbon fiber float tubes. It risks turning away new shooters, and places huge burdens on many junior programs which are already strapped for funds.

Lets also not forget that the weight limit does not include the sling or the magazine. How long will it be before we see extra-heavy slings and SLEDs to add the missing weight back to the rifle? I don't see any reason why a SLED can't be made from Tungsten, can you? Who benefits from this?

I'm all for allowing optics, for many reasons, not the least of which it allows many more shooters to get in the game. And I understand why the idea of a weight limit is appealing - give optics shooters a perceived benefit (the scope), but give them a perceived disadvantage as well (the weight limit).

I fear that when this plan meets the light of day, however, it will serve only to force service rifle shooters to undertake a pointless expenditure of money to create the rifle they want, through the additional expenses of barrel fluting, skeletonizing float tubes, and many more things I'm sure folks will think of to balance that rifle.

So, who wants to join me in a group order for Tungsten SLED's?
Reply With Quote