Army Snipers upgrade 7.62x51NATO (.308 Win) to .300 Win Mag in their modified M24's

[Monadnock]

Based on the Remington 700, the M24 was experimented with to chamber the 7.62x67 .300 Win Mag, but that version, the XM24A1 was scrapped due to cartridge availability and powder burn rate issues.

Well I remembered that article, and apparently, the .300 Win Mag is back, because the Army ordered around 40 million rounds of 220 grain Sierra MatchKing HPBT. I thought that Knight's M110 (.308) was the weapon of choice after long deliberation???? What happened to that? It was just awarded contract a year or two ago ...I thought.

I would have expected the 8.58x70 .338 Lapua Magnumwin the race because of the success of the British/Canadian snipers in Afghanistan. I guess that retaining the 700 platform and rifle/ammo weight won-out.

Oh well, we'll see what this does to .300 Win Mag availability and prices (brass and such).

Sniper Central M24 SMS

Remington M-24 Sniper (Law Enforcement)

 

[bpm990d]

I believe the way it works is that the military establishes an operational requirement and then tries to evaluate if a particular rifle/ammunition will meet that requirement.

According to this NDIA presentation: U.S. Naval Small Arms Ammunition Advancements there was an operational requirement submitted of 1500 yards max effective range which NSWC thinks the .300 WM will do with 220 Sierras.

I think Army snipers are going to have three rifles.

B

 

[Kenny474]

I was under the impression the Knight M110 was going to be for a squad's designated marksman, and used at some degree as a sniper as an off shoot of it's intended purpose? I may have misunderstood what I read though. As what I read seemed to say it was to extend the reach of the designated marksman beyond the ability of the 5.56 round, much like the M14 and M1A already have. I had a friend deployed in Afganistan, and he said his designated marksman had Springfield M1A's purchased by his squad before they deployed. I will ask him what he knows of it next time I talk to him.

Though I don't understand going with the .300 mag over the .338 Lapua. I also thought with all the success it has had that it would have been a shoe in. Although the ability to retain the M24 platform may have been a factor, as cost of Lapua rounds may have also played a part as well. Though I am no expert and these are only my thoughts.
I would think the .338 Lapua would have more energy at 1500 yards than the .300 mag, but it must be efficient enough, as it has passed the test.

 

[PatMcD]

I was under the impression the Knight M110 was going to be for a squad's designated marksman, and used at some degree as a sniper as an off shoot of it's intended purpose? I may have misunderstood what I read though. As what I read seemed to say it was to extend the reach of the designated marksman beyond the ability of the 5.56 round, much like the M14 and M1A already have. I had a friend deployed in Afganistan, and he said his designated marksman had Springfield M1A's purchased by his squad before they deployed. I will ask him what he knows of it next time I talk to him.Though I don't understand going with the .300 mag over the .338 Lapua. I also thought with all the success it has had that it would have been a shoe in. Although the ability to retain the M24 platform may have been a factor, as cost of Lapua rounds may have also played a part as well. Though I am no expert and these are only my thoughts.
I would think the .338 Lapua would have more energy at 1500 yards than the .300 mag, but it must be efficient enough, as it has passed the test.

I'd like to hear a little more about the text highlighted in bold.

 

[bpm990d]

I would think the .338 Lapua would have more energy at 1500 yards than the .300 mag, but it must be efficient enough, as it has passed the test.

I was curious so I ran the numbers. Unless they step up to the 300 Gr .338 bullet the number are reasonably close. I was surprised that they went with the 220 Sierra. It has a lower BC than the 210 and has close to .030 more bearing surface. I'm surprised that they got less velocity with it when compared to the 220s. Something is fishy.

View attachment 220 Sierra 300 WM..pdf

View attachment 250 Gr. Sierra 338&.pdf

Also they are all transonic at 1500 yards on a standard day.

B

 

[Kenny474]

I'd like to hear a little more about the text highlighted in bold.

Certain parts of the military can do this because of decentralized purchase authority, so they can purchase special equipment for their squad or battalion based on certain needs. I was unaware of this until he called me from Afganistan and told me about it. It is also discussed in the April 2010 issue of Gun's and Ammo in Richard Venola's "Rounds Down Range" back page article. My friend actually has a picture of his squad with a member holding a Springfield M1A. I will see if I can get a copy of it sent to me. If not, you can find pics on the net of soldiers using them. I don't have any other info on it, as all I really have for proof is his word and a picture he showed me on leave. From what I understand, not every battalion has done this. But I see no reason for him to lie about it, and it certainly seems possible.

I found this link discussing it a bit: http://modern-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/us_army_sdm_marksman_program
Maybe they are M14's, I am unsure. But I was told his squad had M1A's from Springfield Armory.

 

[wolf223]

*generally speaking*

"they are being taught both platforms... the M110 is a go-between the M4/M16 and the M24 / Barrett 50. the higher capacity magazine and semi-auto makes follow up shots quicker w/o trying to rack the bolt. -anywho, i've yet to fondle or confirm an M24 actually chambered in .300 win mag

sources:
1. conventional infantrymen headed for / graduated Sniper School in the last 3 years
2. Military Channel / History Channel

 

[PatMcD]

Certain parts of the military can do this because of decentralized purchase authority, so they can purchase special equipment for their squad or battalion based on certain needs. I was unaware of this until he called me from Afganistan and told me about it. It is also discussed in the April 2010 issue of Gun's and Ammo in Richard Venola's "Rounds Down Range" back page article. My friend actually has a picture of his squad with a member holding a Springfield M1A. I will see if I can get a copy of it sent to me. If not, you can find pics on the net of soldiers using them. I don't have any other info on it, as all I really have for proof is his word and a picture he showed me on leave. From what I understand, not every battalion has done this. But I see no reason for him to lie about it, and it certainly seems possible.

I found this link discussing it a bit: http://modern-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/us_army_sdm_marksman_program
Maybe they are M14's, I am unsure. But I was told his squad had M1A's from Springfield Armory.

Whoa, I never thought anybody was lying. The M14 is seeing a lot of use. I just hadn't heard that commercial M1A's were being used also.
Many of the original M14's are made by Springfield armory (not Springfield, Inc). Maybe that's where the confusion is.

 

[oneswithfunes]

I was curious so I ran the numbers. Unless they step up to the 300 Gr .338 bullet the number are reasonably close. I was surprised that they went with the 220 Sierra. It has a lower BC than the 210 and has close to .030 more bearing surface. I'm surprised that they got less velocity with it when compared to the 220s. Something is fishy.

View attachment 9862



View attachment 9863

Also they are all transonic at 1500 yards on a standard day.

B

There is something wrong with the 250 grain pills at 2800 ish. That is a really light load. Most people are pushing them at closer to 3000. The 300 smk goes around. 2850 or so. Run the numbers on that and you are well past 1500 with lost of speed to spare. I agree on the choice of the 220 smk for the win mag. Use a 208 amax at 2900 and you go well past 1500. The Army may have different needs or requirements?

 

[oneswithfunes]

*generally speaking*

"they are being taught both platforms... the M110 is a go-between the M4/M16 and the M24 / Barrett 50. the higher capacity magazine and semi-auto makes follow up shots quicker w/o trying to rack the bolt. -anywho, i've yet to fondle or confirm an M24 actually chambered in .300 win mag

sources:
1. conventional infantrymen headed for / graduated Sniper School in the last 3 years
2. Military Channel / History Channel

There are m24's in 300 win mag. They are not very common but that is why it was built using a long action.

 

[Kenny474]

Whoa, I never thought anybody was lying. The M14 is seeing a lot of use. I just hadn't heard that commercial M1A's were being used also.
Many of the original M14's are made by Springfield armory (not Springfield, Inc). Maybe that's where the confusion is.

I didn't say you said I was. It just doesn't really make sense to most. And I didn't believe it at first myself. They military has also called back many of the M14's sent out as foreign aid from what I understand. I guess someone finally realized that 5.56 just wasn't cutting it for the long shots. And it's not easy to operate a bolt handle that fast either.
I would think that with all the advantages of a semi auto 7.62, and with the accuracy that can be achieved with them, that it would be huge benefit for multiple targets at distance. It's not going to equal a .300 mag or a .50, but I see no reason why it can't do most things a M24 in 7.62 NATO can, and do it faster as well.

 

[oneswithfunes]

2 Different weapons for 2 different jobs. I don't think bolt guns are that much slower than gas guns if being deployed in a precise manner

 

[Scrivener]

Bolt or semi; .308, .30-'06, .338 Lapua or .577-.450/6.5mm wildcat; I don't care. If the snipers need it; build and issue it.

There is no excuse for the most cost-effective, least collateral damage force multiplier in the military being handicapped for lack of adequate ordnance.

Period.

 

[lupis42]

Bolt or semi; .308, .30-'06, .338 Lapua or .577-.450/6.5mm wildcat; I don't care. If the snipers need it; build and issue it.

There is no excuse for the most cost-effective, least collateral damage force multiplier in the military being handicapped for lack of adequate ordnance.

Period.

I can't find the cite right now, but I recall reading that the average number of rounds fired per enemy kill in Vietnam was over 500,000. The average for snipers was just under 2.

So yeah. What you said.

 

[bpm990d]

There is something wrong with the 250 grain pills at 2800 ish. That is a really light load. Most people are pushing them at closer to 3000. The 300 smk goes around. 2850 or so. Run the numbers on that and you are well past 1500 with lost of speed to spare. I agree on the choice of the 220 smk for the win mag. Use a 208 amax at 2900 and you go well past 1500. The Army may have different needs or requirements?

Interesting. My base of knowledge about the 338 is limited to that NSWC power point. Like a lot of things, my guess is that there is a fair amount of spin in military procurement..... Ha ha say it aint so!

It will be interesting to see how this works out. I'm not sure the numbers of bad guys getting whacked at 1500 yards is going to go up significantly with a .300 WM though.

B

 

[oneswithfunes]

Interesting. My base of knowledge about the 338 is limited to that NSWC power point. Like a lot of things, my guess is that there is a fair amount of spin in military procurement..... Ha ha say it aint so!

It will be interesting to see how this works out. I'm not sure the numbers of bad guys getting whacked at 1500 yards is going to go up significantly with a .300 WM though.

B

My understanding from talking with guys with experience in Afghanistan is that it can be target rich at very long ranges. They want a rifle they can carry and still make shots between 800-1200m. The 300 mag seems to fit that role nicely as the 338 and 50 are well heavy.

 

[Kenny474]

My understanding from talking with guys with experience in Afghanistan is that it can be target rich at very long ranges. They want a rifle they can carry and still make shots between 800-1200m. The 300 mag seems to fit that role nicely as the 338 and 50 are well heavy.

I have heard the same from my friends oversea's as well. A few years ago a Marine friend of mine was deployed to Afghanistan, and he told me a lot of the fighting was close quarters in towns and around buildings and clearing buildings, and from a bit more distance a night.
Now the friends I know that are there tell me a lot of shooting is done at distance, sometimes 300-400meters and longer, sometimes 800-1200, it all depends on the day and the terrain from what little I have had explained from them. They won't tell me straight up, but they seem unhappy with the 5.56, as it doesn't get the job done when the distance gets long. And I am sure they don't like watching bad guy's get away because they don't have anything to make hit's beyond 800meters, and most are limited to about 400 with their M4's. I don't talk to them often, and try to avoid talking about fighting, but this is what I have gotten out of it.

I just hope that whatever we do, we equip our troops with whatever it takes to make their job easier and more effective. I feel it's time we give them whatever they need to get the job done. The shots are getting long, and the troops need some firepower. The .300mag should help, as it's far better than .308, and far more manageable than a .50. Though I also feel more M14's and AR-10's would help as well. I understand the reasoning behind 5.56, but we all know it is limited in range and power, and the velocity loss from the M4 isn't helping. They are better in close combat, but are limited in other areas.

I am glad we are making steps towards increasing firepower, I just hope it's enough.

 

[TheWookie]

.300 WM is a far superior round in coeficnecy, it will get you out to 1,000 easily. It bucks like a mule but if you use a good muzzle brake it won't knock you silly and contribute to a flinch that never quite goes away. It is a little more forgiving of wind errors and/or sloppy holds as velocity is faster.

Much faster, flatter trajectory, and great terminal ballistics.

But the barrel life is drastically reduced, about 1500 rounds and it's done.

 

[Chris]

I can't find the cite right now, but I recall reading that the average number of rounds fired per enemy kill in Vietnam was over 500,000. The average for snipers was just under 2.

So yeah. What you said.

Roughly 1 confirmed kill for 50,000 rounds fired for general infantry.

Roughly 1 confirmed kill for every 1.3 rounds for 'sniper' fire.

Keep in mind that these are 'confirmed' kills. The actual ratios might be better.

 

[bpm990d]

It is a little more forgiving of wind errors ....

A .300 WM will help a great deal in that regard. Wind is the most difficult non deterministic variable of long range shooting.

B

 

[Monadnock]

Thanks for the discussion folks.

I've concluded that it's fairly simple ...meets the milspec ...well requirements regarding effective-kill reach without the .338's extra weight of cartridges and rifle, while being a bit more forgiving in adverse conditions. I don't think that throat erosion factored in too heavily.

Common-sense really ...perhaps surprisingly? I certainly agree that it beats Knight's .308 all-to-heck as a sniper gun.

Multiple firearms for our snipers ...variety is the spice of life, and in this case our enemies' deaths. Here, here to that!