M24 sniper rifles for Afghanistan


PDA






Slater
January 7, 2011, 06:30 PM
That's a pretty pricey item. Wonder if it costs our military the same?:


http://contracting.tacom.army.mil/confls/awd/W56HZV11D00490001/0000.pdf

If you enjoyed reading about "M24 sniper rifles for Afghanistan" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Messenger Guard
January 7, 2011, 06:33 PM
Nope, they get bulk discounts and good driver discounts.:D

JDMorris
January 7, 2011, 10:11 PM
WAIT.
The Afghani's are getting M24's?
That's not cool, good guys or not, they don't need our long range weapons, only to be lost and taken by the insurgents...
Just my opinion..

JHansenAK47
January 7, 2011, 10:18 PM
That's a pretty pricey item. Wonder if it costs our military the same?:

Nope, they get bulk discounts and good driver discounts.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same price.

shotgunjoel
January 7, 2011, 10:22 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same price.
If I remember correctly the last order to FNH for M16's had a unit price of around $420. A lot less than what you can find a lower quality AR at the LGS.

JHansenAK47
January 7, 2011, 10:29 PM
If I remember correctly the last order to FNH for M16's had a unit price of around $420. A lot less than what you can find a lower quality AR at the LGS.

These rifles aren't M16s mass produced at the lowest possible cost. I don't know how much they are charging for them but I wouldn't assume that they are necessarily cheap.

mljdeckard
January 7, 2011, 10:36 PM
The insurgents don't need to steal M-24s to have long-range rifles. Whether it was the M-24 or any of a hundred other commercially available rifles, the Afghanis or their enemies could get a sniping rifle very easily. It isn't the rifle that is dangerous. And it's not like they don't know anything about sniping. They have been using unconventional tactics to drive out invaders for centuries.

I can't open the pdf, I'm going to suggest that if they are actual M-24s, we are probably rotating out our older rifles to them.

This is one of those "fear the indian, not the arrow" situations.

JDMorris
January 7, 2011, 10:44 PM
The Mosin Nagant, or SVD, don't really count as a sniper rifle to me, But if the insurgents get their hands on M24's, with high quality glass, that has a Mil-Dot reticle, that they might learn to use...
That makes me feel sick.
I was watching a program on the Military channel, where a 2 man scout sniper team killed a couple of insurgents that were sitting in a van overlooking a road, when they went to the van after the kills, they recovered a killed snipers' M40, that the insurgents had been using against the Marines.
We don't need that happening in afghanistan, where the standard soldiers' M16's and M4's aren't going to keep up with the .308 rounds....
Last thing we need is insurgents using our weapons against us.

Jaws
January 8, 2011, 12:07 AM
This is bloody insane. :fire:

Talk about stupid military spendings. Why on earth do they need such an expensive rifle paid by us tax payers?
Some second hand M16s it's ok, but $7000 sniper rifle to some guys that used beat up ak's for all their lives is insane.
This wars are really making some people filthy rich on tax payer's backs.
Like is not enough suporting your troops, you have to buy uber cool gadgets for foreign troops, that could use them against you in a few months.:banghead:

Oh, we can't spend our limited resources to get the SCAR to our special forces. .....but we can buy seven grand a piece coll sniper rifles for foreign troops, that could change their mind tomorow. :banghead:

JDMorris
January 8, 2011, 12:27 AM
I though all the M24's were getting the barrel change to .300WM, and that tacticool stock, guess not..

Float Pilot
January 8, 2011, 12:28 AM
As the well trained and armed barbarian hordes plunged through the gates of Rome, one Roman General was heard to remark,
" Are those not the same auxiliary troops we trained last year?"

mljdeckard
January 8, 2011, 12:35 AM
I say again,

If they want long range rifles, it's not like the army is the only place to get them. They can beg, borrow or steal the best rifle in the world, this has never been difficult to get. The reason it hasn't been a concern until now is because they completely understand, having a rifle doesn't make ANYONE a sniper.

I heard the story about the re-captured M-40 too. There is nothing at all to indicate it ever actually fired against us. And when they got it back, it had different glass on it. Anyone can buy a Remington 700 VS and slap a scope on it. That doesn't mean they have a clue what to do with it other than shoot it like an assault rifle but slower. Calm down, this isn't news.

kis2
January 8, 2011, 01:17 AM
mljdeckard is super correct. thank you for posting it.

now back to the op's question: what's the going rate for these anywhere else?

killchain
January 8, 2011, 06:34 AM
This is bloody insane. :fire:

Talk about stupid military spendings. Why on earth do they need such an expensive rifle paid by us tax payers?
Some second hand M16s it's ok, but $7000 sniper rifle to some guys that used beat up ak's for all their lives is insane.
This wars are really making some people filthy rich on tax payer's backs.
Like is not enough suporting your troops, you have to buy uber cool gadgets for foreign troops, that could use them against you in a few months.:banghead:

Oh, we can't spend our limited resources to get the SCAR to our special forces. .....but we can buy seven grand a piece coll sniper rifles for foreign troops, that could change their mind tomorow. :banghead:
The SOCOM refused the SCAR after they demanded FN build it just like they wanted.

Think about it for a second: retraining the entire DoD on a new weapons system, cycling out all of the armories with parts, tools, weapons. Disposal of the old rifles. While fighting two wars? All for the same caliber and a piston? EXPENSIVE. LIKE STUPIDLY EXPENSIVE.

The last time the military did that, they got a bunch of people killed. Remember when they fielded the M16 in Vietnam?

I've used both rifles for their intended purpose. I'll take the M4 anyday.

wannasupra
January 8, 2011, 10:27 AM
they just need to upgrade the existing weaponry to a 6.5mm or 6.8mm. the mags would all still work, so would all other parts of the weapons. expanded capability, no retraining of operators.

longdayjake
January 8, 2011, 11:18 AM
Mags, bolts, and barrels wouldn't work. And in some cases the buffers wouldn't either.

marksman13
January 8, 2011, 11:40 AM
The arguments about them having the rifles are ridiculous. As previous posters have stated, they can get the rifles any where.

My issue is that my tax dollars were used to purchase them. That is what boils my blood. We are past the point of having to supply the Afghan Army.

nathan
January 8, 2011, 11:54 AM
If its paid by taxpayers, they dont care less . They stand in the notion that war is expensive and if it needs to be done, it will be done.

Slater
January 8, 2011, 11:57 AM
We do sell a lot of small arms to that potentially unstable region:

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2009/09-10.pdf

RhinoDefense
January 8, 2011, 12:22 PM
The 6.8 SPC will never be the MBR cartridge unless NATO adopts it. Period. The two MBR cartridges approved by NATO are the 5.56 and the 7.62. Changing the MBR cartridge during a war is simply ridiculous.

The problem with today's soldiers not getting enemy kills at distance is not a hardware issue, it's a software issue. The soldiers are getting poor training in marksmanship and the accuracy and skill set of our soldiers is degrading. A different cartridge and weapon system will not solve that problem. The military needs to get serious about killing and training our soldiers to be marksmen.

Jaws
January 8, 2011, 01:45 PM
killchain Quote:


The SOCOM refused the SCAR after they demanded FN build it just like they wanted.

Think about it for a second: retraining the entire DoD on a new weapons system, cycling out all of the armories with parts, tools, weapons. Disposal of the old rifles. While fighting two wars? All for the same caliber and a piston? EXPENSIVE. LIKE STUPIDLY EXPENSIVE.

The last time the military did that, they got a bunch of people killed. Remember when they fielded the M16 in Vietnam?

I've used both rifles for their intended purpose. I'll take the M4 anyday.

The point I'm trying to make is that for some reason is not justified to get new modern weapon for US troops yet you buy new modern ridiculously expensive sniper rifles for the Afghan Army.
The pdf above shows 9 Million dolar contract for 1300 M24's going to the Afghan Army.
Why not buy some thing like a scoped remington 700's for the Afghan army and use the rest of the money to get something for the US troops instead. Or just don't spend the money.
I just used the scar example becaus you can buy around 7000 SCAR rifles for your troops on the money you spend on 1000 boutique sniper rifles for ANA.

Mainsail
January 8, 2011, 02:26 PM
Am I missing something? I don't see anything in the contract that says this is a foreign military sale (FMS). The customers are the Army and the Air Force and it's administered by DCMA.

Slater
January 8, 2011, 02:39 PM
Mark for:

Afghan National Army Depot 1
Attn cstc-a cje log ana
tel 079-905-9790
off jalalabad rd nxt to camp dogan
Kabul Afghanistan

txhoghunter
January 8, 2011, 03:21 PM
My guess would be that these are probably not for American snipers overseas but I could be wrong. Last I checked the US military had a contract to upgrade existing M24's to .300 WM and I don't think they would order any more 7.62 rifles from the factory (at least not this many).

Slater
January 8, 2011, 04:25 PM
The official Defense.gov announcement:

Remington Arms Co., Inc., Ilion, N.Y., was awarded on Jan. 5 a $8,914,609 firm-fixed-price contract. The award will provide for 1,212 M24 sniper rifles with bipods to the government of Afghanistan. Work will be performed in Ilion, N.Y., with an estimated completion date of Sept. 30, 2014. One bid was solicited with one bid received. The U.S. Army TACOM LCMC, Rock Island, Ill., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-11-D-0049).

HorseSoldier
January 8, 2011, 04:34 PM
I though all the M24's were getting the barrel change to .300WM, and that tacticool stock, guess not..

Funds weren't let to even switch over all the USGI M24s on the current contract. Might change in the future, but not yet.

The 6.8 SPC will never be the MBR cartridge unless NATO adopts it. Period. The two MBR cartridges approved by NATO are the 5.56 and the 7.62. Changing the MBR cartridge during a war is simply ridiculous.

:confused:

Just to rehash the history involved: 7.62x51 became the NATO standard after we told our fellow NATO nations to adopt it. We then switched to 5.56x45 and then imposed that on NATO as well (sure, NATO had a test program to adopt a new caliber, but with the US already having the M16 as its service rifle the outcome was predetermined; to let the other NATO nations besides us feel like they had a vote we did adopt the Belgian's improved bullet format).

So, during the history of its existence, no NATO nation has ever used a service rifle caliber besides what the US adopted first (+/- weapons they might have already had on issue when NATO formed).

Saying the US won't change caliber without NATO permission only makes sense if we ignore the actual history of NATO small arms entirely. :rolleyes:

Zoogster
January 8, 2011, 05:33 PM
Saying the US won't change caliber without NATO permission only makes sense if we ignore the actual history of NATO small arms entirely.


This is correct.


The British actually tried to use what is essentially the 6.8 back in the early 1950s and have it adopted as the NATO standard.
The .280(inches) British is virtually the same in performance as the 6.8SPC and 6.5 Grendel (which is really 6.71mm) today.

The US military refused, the only reason NATO did not adopt what was essentially the same round back in the 1950s as the NATO standard round is because the US military said no.
The US military said the 7.62x51 would be the NATO standard, so it was.
Then some years later the US military said the 5.56x45 would be the NATO standard, and so it was.

NATO will adopt what the US military says because lets be honest, it is primarily US soldiers enforcing and dying for NATO policies, and a lot of the production capabilities are based in the US as well.
NATO forces are typically US forces supplemented with a small percentage of foreign forces.
So the primary voice for logistics is going to be the US military.

RhinoDefense
January 9, 2011, 06:46 PM
Yes I'm well aware of NATO cartridge history. I'm well aware of the procedures involved in the cartridge adoption process.


Read my statement again you quoted and failed to comprehend.

If NATO doesn't adopt the 6.8 cartridge it won't be used for the MBR. Is the 6.8 cartridge in use by the US military? Yes, in very limited numbers and very limited roles and is certainly not the MBR cartridge. Being used and being used in the MBR are two completely different things.

John Parker
January 9, 2011, 08:07 PM
Afghan National Army Depot 1
Attn cstc-a cje log ana
tel 079-905-9790
off jalalabad rd nxt to camp dogan
Kabul Afghanistan

Are the Navy guys still making the run from Phoenix to depot 1 and depot 2 everyday? It was fun going in and checking out all the old Soviet guns being refurbed, before the ANA was caught selling Helwans, which caused them to lock down and move all the weapons.

LemmyCaution
January 9, 2011, 11:31 PM
Considering that the goal of Operation Enduring Paycheck is to line the pockets of well connected defense and security contractors, is this news a surprise to anyone?

goon
January 10, 2011, 04:03 PM
They're employing Americans at least.

Rubber_Duck
January 10, 2011, 07:31 PM
So I have to buy my own mags because they issue me recycled and abused junk but we can buy the Afghans M24s? GREAT.

I wonder how many PMags could be bought for soldiers and Marines that need them with the amount of money this one contract is worth.

Jaws
January 10, 2011, 08:16 PM
Well, at $14 a piece, for the 9 million bucks the Afghan M24 contract shows, you could get 643.000 PMAGs for the troops.
Now if they could get them at let's say ten bucks a piece, you could get 900.000 PMAGs. :banghead:

If you enjoyed reading about "M24 sniper rifles for Afghanistan" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!