The "New" Barrett MRAD Thread!!!!!!
- Thread starter IanHusaberg
- Start date
$6,999
Mk22 standalone 308: https://www.eurooptic.com/Barrett-M...ite-Cerakote-20-Fluted-Bbl-1-8-Advanced-.aspx
Mk22 standalone 300: https://www.eurooptic.com/Barrett-M...Elite-Cerakote-26-Fluted-Bbl-1-8-Advance.aspx
Mk22 standalone 338: https://www.eurooptic.com/Barrett-M...Elite-Cerakote-27-Fluted-Bbl-1-94-Advanc.aspx
Fantastic! Now I can get the 338 and put a Primary Arms scope on it 
For what it's worth, the commercial MRAD is on sale for $5,199.
$1,800 cheaper than the standalone Mk22.
Even after adding the bag rider and an E-190 cerakote job, you're still saving $1,000 and at the point the only real difference is the markings on the side of the receiver. If you want to be really technical, the barrel length is slightly different too.
Honestly, though, the Mk22 is their contract sniper rifle, so I expected an upcharge just for that prestige part alone. So, $6,999 isn't shocking.
$1,800 cheaper than the standalone Mk22.
Even after adding the bag rider and an E-190 cerakote job, you're still saving $1,000 and at the point the only real difference is the markings on the side of the receiver. If you want to be really technical, the barrel length is slightly different too.
Honestly, though, the Mk22 is their contract sniper rifle, so I expected an upcharge just for that prestige part alone. So, $6,999 isn't shocking.
I don't know if anyone else is using the MRAD as a base rifle for "non-standard" calibers... The MRAD loves the 300 PRC but I wanted to change. So I am going to shoot a couple of ELR matches this year in 7 PRCW. The problem I ran into is the MRAD does not like this caliber and it does not feed reliably. So I started exploring my options and found that this caliber will feed from a MDT magnum magazine that has been fit into an MRAD magazine. (weird right?). So far my initial test are great, and its working fine. If you have any interest in this unusual project let me know.
I just saw that...
What the hell am I looking at?
Is the shooter taking the slack out of the first stage and then attempting to manipulate the safety at which point the firearm is going off?
Freakin weird...
Someone correct me if I am observing this wrong.
Last edited:
I believe mk22’s use the single stage trigger.. looks like it is a hang fire, possibly light primer strikes?
The link to that video literally just disappeared 30 seconds ago. I was watching it, then went to replay it and...gone.
Anyway, what I saw/heard was a soft "click" when he pulled the trigger with the safety Off. The person videoing it said something like, "Ok, I heard it. Ok, now go ahead and..." At that point it looks like the shooter complies with the unspoken instruction, and attempts to put the safety back On and the rifle fires as soon as he moves it.
Anyway, what I saw/heard was a soft "click" when he pulled the trigger with the safety Off. The person videoing it said something like, "Ok, I heard it. Ok, now go ahead and..." At that point it looks like the shooter complies with the unspoken instruction, and attempts to put the safety back On and the rifle fires as soon as he moves it.
Yep, he took it down. I saw what you saw, rifle was on "fire" the entire time, he applied pressure to the trigger and heard a slight click. Released the trigger, touched the safety and the gun fired. I am not sure how much pressure he applied to the trigger but the idea that you could get "on the trigger", change your mind, go safe and have an ND is something that will need to be addressed. Reminds me of the Remington trigger issues of years ago and again what Triggertech was experiencing a year or two ago. I hope Barrett resolves the issue.
This video needs to not disappear. So here it is in full. This needs to be addressed. @71firebird400 assessment is fairly spot on. But for a sniper... this flaw is not only dangerous, but potentially lethal.
Agreed, this needs to be sorted out. There have been flawed trigger designs before, just look at the AI competition trigger that is known to fail. The good news here is that a redesign of the trigger SHOULD be able to address the issue and that is a very easy to swap part on an MRAD/MK22.
117 receivers had to be replaced in 2024 by military units at Fort Moore, with another 15 of those due to trigger failures. Failures like these can be fatal to an operator in the field. I wouldn't say the issue has been completely addressed to those using these rifles in the field. Addressed for all future rifles and future customers? Maybe. Addressed for those who's lives depend on these rifles running flawlessly? I disagree.
I cannot speak for Barrett, but my understanding is that the chassis failures were addressed with the revision and have been replaced.
You must understand that a large scale rifle program is going to expose ANY weakness in a design and will require revisions and evolution to take care of unforeseen circumstances. I won't pick on anyone specific but a lot of times you see new rifle designs introduced that may look great, but if you were to field hundreds of them and put them through the rigors of the US Army training regiment and use case there will be issues that bubble to the surface that would be nearly impossible to identify during T&E. Throwing rifles around, running them in all sorts of conditions, running up round counts, passing through the hands of many shooters are all elements that will contribute to finding these sorts of issues. Just look at the thousands of MRADS in civilians hands and I have not seen anyone identify or replicate the issue.
With that said, it is absolutely the responsibility of the manufacturer to acknowledge the issue and remedy it. I suspect Barrett will be searching for a solution to ensure the Mk22 doesn't end up like the Mk21.
This rifle isn't new. It's been in their hands for 3 years. These failures have been happening for 3 years. And military snipers have been complaining to leadership to address these issues with Barrett for 3 years on deaf ears. This video shared is the first time in those 3 years that cages have been rattled hard enough for anyone to listen. For it to take this level of humiliation and publicity for Barrett to listen and enact changes is an issue. Furthermore... we still haven't heard anything from Barrett that they are, in fact, addressing the issues still continuing today, to include the cracked receivers within military units, let alone the safety mechanism failure.
I'm angry at the situation, and don't completely disagree with your perspective on this. Am saying this so nothing said is taken personally.
Absolutely, I think we're on the same page. I just felt it's necessary to point out that even the most rigorous T&E program will let issues like this slip through the cracks. There is no such thing as being able to "perfect" your design without deploying hundreds or thousands of a given weapon and then LISTENING to the complaints/issues and taking action to resolve them. Barrett showed they were willing to do that with the revised receivers, which quite frankly seemed like a more complicated and expensive fix than the trigger.
The ball is in Barretts court, and the spot light a small amount of social media brought to the issue should get their attention. I hope they handle this swiftly.
Question. Perhaps a very naïve one.
IF Barrett was aware of this. Why wouldn't they do something about it? The potential fall out should it become public knowledge could be MASSIVE, i.e. a lost contract and god knows what other repercussions.
Why standby and do nothing versus simply fixing the damn thing? Yes, it costs money to fix things but unless its a fundamental flaw requiring the entire rifle to be re-engineered, a lost contract is probably far more fiscally damaging? No?
This looked to me like trigger manipulation somehow lost control of the sear, and then fiddling with the safety droped the FP/striker assembly...possibly a dangerous situation if it was a complete suprise and happening wrong/time wrong place...etc.
I'm sure its not exactly the same issues, but SIG had a 2-stage trigger on the cross rifle have some kind of similar issue, ie droping the firing pin,
for reference...
step 1 - Manipulates trigger,attempting to fire, rifle doesnt fire.
step 2 - Moves to make safe (open bolt)...and sear drops...live round downrange.
If Barrett is looking at the same scale/scope of issue, they probably need time to figure out a fix, do a recall, and then replace the fire-control units (ie triggers). Sig fixed that issue pretty quick. Its not instantaneous to do these things.
Again not saying any of this is or isn't happening, but its the nature of the things involved that is possible to happen.
I'm sure its not exactly the same issues, but SIG had a 2-stage trigger on the cross rifle have some kind of similar issue, ie droping the firing pin,
for reference...
step 1 - Manipulates trigger,attempting to fire, rifle doesnt fire.
step 2 - Moves to make safe (open bolt)...and sear drops...live round downrange.
If Barrett is looking at the same scale/scope of issue, they probably need time to figure out a fix, do a recall, and then replace the fire-control units (ie triggers). Sig fixed that issue pretty quick. Its not instantaneous to do these things.
Again not saying any of this is or isn't happening, but its the nature of the things involved that is possible to happen.
Barrett already remedied the chassis issues, so there is no reason to think they would not also respond to this trigger issue (assuming it's substantiated). Again, these types of things are likely only being exposed because of the number of rifles entering service and the nature of the use they are exposed to. Teething issues, running production improvements and parts replacements/recalls are all part of the process.
This response is promising. Time will tell, but I suspect this issue gets addressed.
I tried dry firing mine about 100x every which way I could to replicate what the video shows with no failure. Regular mrad.
Barrett and others in the mil absolutely did know of several issues observed over the last 3 years. Most came to light within a year. When people brought it up, not a thing was done to fix it. Actually some brass got pissed at people for, using the mil channels, bringing up the problems.
Good for these guys going outside the mil to get some traction. We’ll see how far it goes..
I just figured ultimately that was the MO of the US gov at this point. Easier to ignore, deflect and cast blame on others before actually fixing anything. Call me a skeptic but it’s gonna be years before the trigger and other problems are resolved. Cough cough blowing up 300nm 215s at a consistent rate… shits cool until you understand mil snipers could be shooting overhead of civilians and friendlies then maybe we give a shit about where that round impacts.. but that’s the next video.
Do you mean the 215gr bullets (Bergers, I believe?) are coming apart in-flight?
You say the issues have been observed, but then state that not a thing was done to fix it. Yet, Barrett revised the chassis and issued new receivers, did they not? Why would you think that they would tackle that issue head on and ignore others?
As for the "blowing up bullets", Frank at Bartlein has commented on that and pointed out the simple fact that running 200-300 rounds a day on a barrel with minimal cleaning is likely a part of the problem. You can't really pin that one on Barrett when they're using the convential twist rate for a NM. If anything that issue will probably boil down to either bullets or cleaning.
We knew the triggers had issues 3 years ago. I guess that one is slow to fix, the gun only fires on safe and bolt lift, no big deal! but hey Barrett did a great job fixing literally cracked receivers.
Does frank think guys are shooting 200-300rds of Norma a day? That’s not a fact dude if you’re not in the community why are you a vested party in the mk22 discussion?
Ya know sorry I posted my opinion, sometimes the internet gets the best of me. I’m out.
Didn't mean to rile you up, and there are certainly some things that will have to be remedied. I think it’s like any new weapon fielding. The testing before they’re issued is never going to catch all the problems that arise when they’re actually in guys hands.
I got that, I’ve been apart of the system long enough to watch issue and upgrades happen. The response from Barrett and within the mil system was not as positive as I believe you think it was. That’s what is disappointing to the “ground” guy, that’s why that video was publicly released. I don’t blame Barrett, but I was there when they blamed the user for problems. I could tell you, barrels were cleaned on a program and they still blow up… I’d argue I wouldn’t have picked that bullet design for mil use. That being said, that shouldn’t happen.
Sounds like you know more than the average bear. The ammo issue could be a bullet issue or they just selected too "hotrod" of a cartridge for what the Army does with their stuff. Either way that one needs to be addressed as well, but it doesn't really fall on Barrett. Regardless, let's hope they sort out the trigger issue and put it to rest.
I wouldn't take @JustSendit personally. His anger is justified, and it isn't targeted at you personally. But his responses are also accurate. The amount of shit end users i.e. military snipers have received over a very observed and repeatable problem has been horrific. And when it's been 3 years of it, is wrong.
No, not all recovered have been fixed and replaced yet within the military ranks, even if they fix it for consumers. That it took this video to actually enact discussion and change after 3 whole years is what makes everyone angry, along with Barrett's lack of sincerity to address the problem for the military end users.
You’ll have zero issues. If for whatever reason you do, like others said Barrett CS will take care of you. I’ve dealt with them
Before and after the NIOA acquisition and they’ve been great. Since they don’t have to jump through hoops for contract reasons with you, you’ll be fine. I’ve ran my two for over 5 years now without a single hiccup.
I agree with these guys, I would not regret it. It’s a good rifle, few issues I’m sure will be resolved. If could own a mk22 kit I’d be happy to have it.
By and large, that majority of mk22s I have seen functioned fine over multiple barrels. There’s just enough that have trigger issues or barrel dilemmas that I think is percent too high for their mil application.
By and large, that majority of mk22s I have seen functioned fine over multiple barrels. There’s just enough that have trigger issues or barrel dilemmas that I think is percent too high for their mil application.
LOL good timing. That looks to be a non-dimpled chassis? Barrett should take care of it no questions asked.
In that case it just simply predates the updated chassis. Congrats, as I believe you're the first civilian that I have heard of encountering this issue
Out of curiousity, how many times would you say you swapped the barrel?
swapped between 308 and 300 PRC 4x. Between 1000 and 1300 rounds fired.
I suspect Barrett will swap you for the updated chassis which, as far as I know, addresses the issue entirely. Good luck, I hope it's a painless process.
In that case it just simply predates the updated chassis. Congrats, as I believe you're the first civilian that I have heard of encountering this issue
I assume what I have its the dimpled updated chassis？I haven't done any barrel swap yet…
Similar threads
