I have a fair amount of experience with MK11 SR-25s and the M110 up until about 5 years ago. The specifications the Army required in the M110 compared to the current MK 11 SRs of that time weren't anything that would effect reliability. They were mostly related to external furniture. I don't think it's possible to try to make some sort of exception for the M110 as an aside while also propping up it's sister generation of SR25's. As far as the army refusing to let Knight upgrade them, everything Knights did to the guns cost money. The Army was pretty disillusioned in the M110 and refused to pour anymore money into it. Hence why the CSASS down select followed.
We broke a lot of bolts. IMO this was due to M118LR being loaded hotter (plus using temp sensitive powder) over the years right before the M110 was fielded. It was hard on a gas gun. The triggers would fail. They would start to double tap. This was always clouded with skepticism because newer shooters could induce a double tap by having extremely poor fundamentals but we saw trigger issues with SR25s before the big Army even procured the M110. And the M110's accuracy degraded surprisingly quickly. And this isn't related to the current date Knights SR25 chrome lined barrels. These were all SS barrels made for precision. They would shoot pretty good when new but they had nowhere the service life of the M24. They all(M110's and that generation of SR25's) came with factory proof targets. Knights measured accuracy by dispersion of rounds in the group from POA. From center to the farthest round from center. Not by outside to outside. So the measurements written on the proof targets sounded great but they were generally not impressive from the factory.
Looking back, those guns did pretty good considering the hordes of unwashed masses of retarded big Army E4's that skull drug them around. At the time the vast majority did not have much experience with large frame ARs and all comparisons were made to a very simple and reliable bolt gun that served for 20 plus years. Considering what they went through they did pretty good for a gas gun and I'm willing to bet they don't compare to current KAC SRs although I don't have any experience with new APCs or the like.
The large frame AR has come a long way in the last 15 years. There are plenty of options and the random guy on SH that has zero experience with LFARs, hasn't bought one or built one, that post's a "what's the most reliable AR to buy(because I'm too ignorant of them in general to even begin to build one, or replace a gas tube)" doesn't really require an $8K invincible AR thats even too rich for DODs blood. He's going to drive it to a 100yd flat range and buy cheap Sellior and Bellot 175gr ammo. But that's always where these threads go. Not trying to be offensive to the OP but that's just the reality most of the time for civilians.
OP, PM
@MSTN and have him build you a reasonable gun. It's not rocket science that requires rare earth metals and $1500 bolts
Bolt breakage on large frames is very unusual, but it was common with M110s because the Army required the bolts to be HPT’d, like the stupid requirement on M4 bolts. SR-25s were rarely known, if ever, for breaking bolts before that. KAC voiced their protests about HPTing bolts, but big Army overrode competent, sound engineering and demanded HPT for the contract.
This is why JSOC and other elements who frequently supported JSOC refused to order the M110, and only ordered SR-25 improved models.
Big Army E-4s are often smarter than the PEOs of weapons programs, since the really smart PEOs get allocated to Aviation, Armor, Artillery, Medical, EW, Cyber, etc. Most of the officers in the Army who end up dealing with small arms programs don’t have the engineering backgrounds or competent managerial experience to run a basic weapons improvement project, and it shows time-after-time.
In fact, the most consequential, successful small arms programs adopted by the US Army over the last 60 years were driven by the USAF or Belgium:
AR-15 (USAF)
FN Minimi (became the SAW)
M240 (MAG 58)
Some smaller programs were all driven by JSOC, then loosely-copied and watered-down by SOCOM, or driven by AMU in conjunction with SOF elements (SPR and Mk.262).
Big Army has no successful, well-received small arms programs outside of those. M14 failed. M60 was trash. SPIW was a total failure. ACR was a failure. M24 was retarded. M9, XM8, MHS, ISCR, NGSAR, NGSW all misguided, poorly-executed, ill-conceived programs that ignore basic institutional knowledge the Army has possessed for over a century.
