Shootrite Katana

[Mr.Davis]

Based on what I saw on Sons of Guns, where they featured Tiger working with Red Jacket Firearms to "develop" the rifle, the imperative was "as light as possible while retaining reliability".

Every element of the rifle's design was selected to minimize weight and simplify operation. You don't like it? Fine. The product is built for a specific niche, which may or may not include you.

People need to understand that a product that isn't made for you isn't necessarily a bad, or dumb, or stupid product.

 

[benzy2]

Based on what I saw on Sons of Guns, where they featured Tiger working with Red Jacket Firearms to "develop" the rifle, the imperative was "as light as possible while retaining reliability".

Every element of the rifle's design was selected to minimize weight and simplify operation. You don't like it? Fine. The product is built for a specific niche, which may or may not include you.

People need to understand that a product that isn't made for you isn't necessarily a bad, or dumb, or stupid product.

Not saying its a bad rifle for the purpose it's designed. I am saying it's about $600-$800 overpriced through Red Jacket. The parts, bought individually at full market value doesn't amount to $1200. The rifle as a whole doesn't typically come to the cost of the parts individually. Would I pay $1000-$1200 for the rifle? Sure, if I was in the market for that type of rifle. Would I pay $1800? Absolutely not, in the market or not.

 

[henschman]

I think the perfected simplified AR would at least get rid of the rear charging handle.

"A fighting rifle does not need elevation adjustment." I guess he's locked into the paradigm that a fighting rifle won't be used past 300m. I say why limit yourself? The elevation adjustment was a major improvement to the AR rear sight IMO.

I would have gone with a modular FF tube like the TRX Extreme, so the user could put accessory rails where he wants. Not everybody will use just a flashlight, and not everybody will want it in the same place.

I don't think this product has a very bright future... anybody who is specific enough in their tastes to want these features knows how to put one together themselves for less money.

 

[chrome_austex]

haters gonna hate.

I don't think the upper is all that overpriced. Keep in mind, you're (theoretically) paying for quality control, assembly, and the various presumably high quality parts, including a name brand barrel.

I like the concept. A non elevation rear sight isn't the end of the world. ARs seem to hold their zero pretty well and the front post adjusts for elevation. A gun as light as that is going to be tricky to use for shots beyond 300y, so why bother with redundant adjustments? This one is clearly optimized for a different job. Nothing wrong with that.

... and don't kid yourself... Match rifle irons aren't the same thing as battle rifle ghost ring irons. The majority of competitive service rifle shooters use a hooded peep rear aperture that sacrifices the ghost ring (or some sort of match rifle monstrosity). These guns can be used in close quarters, but they're optimized for service rifle competition (complete with hidden buttstock and handguard weights).

 

[benzy2]

That's fine and all, but that upper doesn't cost $700 to put together buying the pieces individually. The lower doesn't cost $350 to put together either. I'm all for the idea but when they charge $600-$800 just to assemble the parts, well, count me out. Have you seen how they assemble stuff on the show? Not real confidence inspiring.

The truth is, with retail markup what it is and labor what it is, these rifles shouldn't cost more than $1200-$1400 at the most. Everything else is playing off their name.

 

[Mr.Davis]

Not saying its a bad rifle for the purpose it's designed. I am saying it's about $600-$800 overpriced through Red Jacket. The parts, bought individually at full market value doesn't amount to $1200. The rifle as a whole doesn't typically come to the cost of the parts individually. Would I pay $1000-$1200 for the rifle? Sure, if I was in the market for that type of rifle. Would I pay $1800? Absolutely not, in the market or not.

You made valid points, so my comments weren't directed at you.

 

[crossrhodes]

Jury still out on that one...NOT

I think it's a good police patrol rifle. I wouldn't use it as a military service weapon. We went to a heavier barrel for a reason. Also with all the low light no light optics in use your going to need a railed forearm. Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the barrel nut permanently attach to the hand guard, break a hand guard and now you need a torque wrench to put on a hand guard. Sorry, but the forward assist has helped me more then not. I'm not into the idea of using my finger to push a hot bolt forward. I'm not a "hater" but my opinion is it wouldn't last a week in South America or the sand box with out major issues.
Keep iron sights, their use and capability make the "extra" weight a non issue. Marines have been shooting farther then 300 yards for decades...why change now. After Action reports show there is still a need for the capability.
Good cop gun but not a good infantry rifle.....but then again...I'm from the Internet and I'm here to save you...LOL

Buy a Colt or Noveske.

 

[Averageman]

The forward assist is more for closing the bolt after brass checking than fixing a problem that wouldn't go into battery on it's own. When you pull the charging handle back far enough to see brass, often the bolt doesn't have enough momentum to lock back up when released. This is where the FA is beneficial. Any other time it does more harm than good.
That may be a good use for the Forward Assist, and how you use it; but that is not what it was designed for. Yes, it was designed to push/force ammuntion that didn't want to chamber, in to the chamber.
Which really sounds like a very poor idea to me.

 

[Gtscotty]

If I get an AR15 with no forward assist, he can have the Carbon fiber and pencil barrel, I'll keep the extra 1.5 lbs and $1200.

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_786006_-1_757785_757784_757784_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

(msrp $700, will probably sell around $600)

 

[crossrhodes]

FA

Yeah.... The "forcing a round that doesn't fit" spiel sounds good but that's about it. The FA is a good idea and I wouldn't go without one. There have been times that the carbon, dust, muck or what ever would prevent the bolt from setting all the way forward when you had to insert and feed from a fresh mag and that palm strike to the FA would do it, the push with the finger thing couldn't provide the necessary force to do it. Could care less for Stoner's reason for not having one because it does help. Just ask those that use it for other then range queens. I think you would find that a lot of us VETS would prefer to have it and the percentage that wouldn't would be insignificant. FA on a gas impingement rifle is a good thing.

 

[crossrhodes]

Actually. The army wanted a FA because it didn't have a reciprocating bolt handle and the wanted away to ensure the bolt was fully seated.

 

[HorseSoldier]

"A fighting rifle does not need elevation adjustment." I guess he's locked into the paradigm that a fighting rifle won't be used past 300m. I say why limit yourself? The elevation adjustment was a major improvement to the AR rear sight IMO.

It's one of the most worthless features attached to the M16A2 project, to be honest, and was only adopted because it made it easier for Marines to qualify on their non-combat focused qualification course. I've never observed it to be used in the real world on two way ranges -- and I'm pretty certain 99% of other people will agree with me.

 

[Zak Smith]

Iron sights are there because they are 100% on and reliable all the time. A finger-dial-adjustable rear sight (e.g. A2) is a liability. You want to be a force multiplier at over 300 yards, get an ACOG.

 

[alemonkey]

Overall I think this rifle is an overpriced, Me-Too product. But I do agree with their philosophy on sights. Use the front sight to set elevation so you can hold center of mass and hit out to 300 yards. In a real firefight you're not going to be fiddling around with elevation adjustments.

 

[benzy2]

Iron sights are there because they are 100% on and reliable all the time. A finger-dial-adjustable rear sight (e.g. A2) is a liability. You want to be a force multiplier at over 300 yards, get an ACOG.

So the adjustments on an A2 rear sight are a liability but the adjustments on an ACOG aren't?

 

[Realbigo]

i kinda like the ability to hang stuff, and if im buying it, it's getting scoped

 

[Zak Smith]

benzy2,

So the adjustments on an A2 rear sight are a liability but the adjustments on an ACOG aren't?

Yes. The adjustments on the ACOG are capped, and not exposed to anything (or anyone) that might bump them off zero. Even scopes in the "DMR" role (ie, the ACOG) are meant to do elevation compensation using the reticle only, not "online" clicker adjustments (such as the A2).

-z

 

[crossrhodes]

I'll agree to disagree

I see nothing wrong with having the capability/knowledge of using iron sight out to 500 yards. Never say never. As for zaks statement about the Marine Corps rifle qualifications. I don't think you understand (not bagging on you) but it's the basic Marksmanship fundamentals that are emphasized during annual qualifications. The sustainment training takes care of the combat focus shooting. But you got to love the ACOG.

 

[benzy2]

Yes. The adjustments on the ACOG are capped, and not exposed to anything (or anyone) that might bump them off zero. Even scopes in the "DMR" role (ie, the ACOG) are meant to do elevation compensation using the reticle only, not "online" clicker adjustments (such as the A2).

Gotcha. I thought you were saying the movements of the A2 were unreliable rather than they were exposed and able to be bumped/changed on accident.

 

[Zak Smith]

As for zaks statement about the Marine Corps rifle qualifications.

I made no such statement.

 

[Bonesinium]

You are correct, it was HorseSoldier, who posted above you. He was mistaken.

 

[HorseSoldier]

As for zaks statement about the Marine Corps rifle qualifications. I don't think you understand (not bagging on you) but it's the basic Marksmanship fundamentals that are emphasized during annual qualifications. The sustainment training takes care of the combat focus shooting. But you got to love the ACOG.

Not saying that the USMC doesn't do more and better rifle training, nor that they don't do combat focused training, just stating the fact that their standard qual course is not combat focused. It is about basics. And also stating the fact that the A2 sights were adopted to make it easier for Marines to qualify on that qual course, not to make a better fighting rifle.

 

[crossrhodes]

A2 Sights

It made sight manipulation easier and a little quicker but it didn't make qualifications any easyer. Still had to apply the basics to qual. I'll say, it felt pretty good watching Marines hit a man size target at 500 yards and able to call and plot shots and figure out their dope by watching the range flags. I'm bias, I know, but you can't say that it's a bad course for learning the basics.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

What practical use do the A2 sights have outside of a Service Rifle or qual course of fire? Near as I can tell the only use is for those occasions where you are engaging a 300m+ target with irons and have enough time to adjust windage and elevation; but not enough time to do it with a bullet point like the older A1 sights.

That strikes me as an improbable scenario. In the meantime, in everyday use, it is much easier for that finger-adjustable windage or elevation knob to get adjusted accidentally and cause the zero you actually use 99% of the time to be off.

 

[68wj]

...In the meantime, in everyday use, it is much easier for that finger-adjustable windage or elevation knob to get adjusted accidentally and cause the zero you actually use 99% of the time to be off.

True, but every good Marine knows the elevation settings for their rifle and can set it back at will. Windage is another story as the index lines on the A2 sight never really line up, but the knob itself is very difficult to move intentionally, let alone accidentally.

Granted, this is mostly irrelevant as they are also trained to find BZO and leave it alone. Maybe some Marine can step in and say that they made a 500 yd iron sight hit in combat by reading the wind and range, dialing it into their sight, and making the shot. It would be the exception.