Last September USSOCOM awarded SIG SAUER a contract for the Reduced Signature Assault Rifle which is commercially available as the Rattler and is in service with allied SOF. Every program results in slight tweaks to the item finally issued. Seen below is the current version (top) and the RSAR as originally adopted (bottom).
Selected in 300 BLK, 7.62×39 and 5.56, the three variants now have a common barrel length, 7.75″.
Additionally USSOCOM recently completed the safety certification so these should be going into service soon.
Everything I’m seeing there is a plus. The new rail(assuming its similar to the spear lite) , the collapsing stock, and the 7.75″ bbl are all improvements. I understand the “why’s” on the original Rattler , but that’s going to be a much more useful weapon.
So you didn’t notice the forward assist then?
Yeah, just agnostic about it, personally” fine” with it there or not. Like it, but not tied to it.
So looks like it got the Spear LT treatment which makes sense…weapon gets handier, ambi lower, and the gas adjustment looks like it’s better placed as well.
Is the new gas block position unique?
What is the 7.62×38 caliber?
Surely it’s not the 1895 7.62x38R round for the Nagant revolver…?
I was wondering if it was Wilson Combat’s .300 HAM’R, but that is almost a 41mm case length. Could just be a typo, and they meant to say 7.62×39.
The rattler was a 5.5″ bbl, wasn’t it? This makes it longer than the LVAW at 6.75″
I assume SIG is just balancing can and bbl lengths to keep the packages similar in size?
Understanding it was user driven, 300 and 7.62 tend to start dropping velocity at a faster rate somewhere around the 7″ mark depending on the load .
Depending on primer , powder and bullet combinations – 5.5” you are getting tops 70% or less powder burn (300BO run the choices in Quickload) you really need more that 3” to build up some decent pressure and we can always go down the rabbit hole on dwell time.
I didnt think there was suck a thing as an assault rifle?
I was thinking along the lines that it isn’t wise, politically, to refer to the civilian SA variant as an “assault” rifle.
What he said ?
That was supposed to be an arrow but came out a question mark. jukk0u is correct.
That’s the nomenclature assigned by USSOCOM and not a SIG naming convention.