New USMC Sniper Rifle?

Loyalist Dave said:

Apparently the venerable M40 rifle is going to be a thing of the past, since the USMC is going to a rifle in .300 Winchester Magnum. It's a completely new platform, and gives them a 1300 meter capability.

Given all those M40's out there in .308 Remington/7.62 NATO..., I wonder why they didn't keep the same platform and rebarrel them to .260 Remington?

I probably am too ill informed, and there were likely compatibility issues with allied forces who also prefer the .300 WinMag, plus the variety of different weights of bullets for that cartridge over the .260 Remington.

SO...., what are they going to do with the now surplus M40's ???

https://thenewsrep.com/111075/usmc-...KZPsC-W-HgT7iMYeKMLYB6j-nioyOUyW7FeMUSrRB9afE

LD

Click to expand...

Knowing the DOD, they plan to have them meet the shredder at Anniston Arsenal.

260 is not going to have the oomph at 1000 m 300 win mag does.

https://www.shootingillustrated.com...tt-to-produce-mrad-rifles-in-300-prc-for-dod/

Tuesday, December 4, 2018 300 PRC.



Each branch of the military may have there own preference of sniper rifle? https://discover.dtic.mil

https://search.defense.gov/search?affiliate=dod-search&query=

Barrett Firearms Mfg. Inc., Christiana, Tennessee, was awarded a $7,952,249 firm-fixed-price contract for the procurement of M107, Caliber .50 Long Range Sniper Rifle systems with scope, suppressor and spare kits, M82A1M Caliber .50 Rifle and M107A1. Bids were solicited via the internet with one received. Work locations and funding will be determined with each order, with an estimated completion date of Nov. 26, 2023. U.S. Army Contracting Command, New Jersey, is the contracting activity (W15QKN-19-D-0009).

Click to expand...

Nov. 27, 2018.

Without looking it up, I think the .300 Winchester is supersonic with over 1000 ft/lbs. energy to about 1400 yards. The .260 and cartridges like it are great target rounds but as killers at extreme range not so much. I often say, bigger and faster is better.

260 is not going to have the oomph at 1000 m 300 win mag does.

Click to expand...

Snipers are shooting men, not moose. Several Special Forces units have adopted the 6.5 CM. Testing shows similar trajectory and wind drift out to almost 2000 yards as 300 WM and the 147 gr 6.5 loads delivered enough "oomph" to kill a man at a mile. Hunters are successfully harvesting game as large as elk well beyond 500 yards with 6.5 rifles. It is still hitting with 357 mag power at a mile. No reason it won't kill a man. They got almost identical results with 260, but for logistics reasons felt the 6.5 CM was the better fit.

The Army planned ahead and had their 308 sniper rifles built on long actions with the thought of converting them to 300 WM in the future. Which is what they have done with at least some of their rifles. That wasn't an option for the Marines with their short action rifles.

Good move. I think the .300 is unnecessarily powerful for hunting, but it's a great sniper round.

The current M-40s will likely go to reserve and Nat. guard units.

cheygriz said:

Good move. I think the .300 is unnecessarily powerful for hunting, but it's a great sniper round.

The current M-40s will likely go to reserve and Nat. guard units.

Click to expand...

300 Magnums are great all around hunting cartridges in areas that have opportunities for some longer range shooting. More than necessary on deer for sure, but they still work well. I think they're about ideal for elk or moose. I'd rather err on more powerful versus less when it comes to hunting rifles.

I don't know enough about sniper rifles to have an opinion on them but I'm sure a 300 Win Mag reaches out plenty far with enough punch for something as small as a human.

Sigh. A day late and a dollar short. SOCOM wanted a 300 WM from the get-go, when the M24 (308) was adopted in 1989. After desert storm, it was shown that a 300 WM would have been superior. I first saw 300 WM rifles in 1993 (some were used in somalia). they didn't start becoming "common" in army SOF units until 2006. By then, the 338 Lapua (in use with SOF units in other allied militaries) was taking care of business in afg. and other places, and is superior to pretty much everything else out there for long range engagements. I first used the MK13 in 2008. It was quickly apparent that it wasn't a solution with a universal adaptor.

Loyalist Dave said:

SO...., what are they going to do with the now surplus M40's ???

Click to expand...

Col. Paul Gillikin stated that,

"When the Mk13 Mod 7 is fielded, it will be the primary sniper rifle in the Marine Corps. The M40A6 will remain in the schoolhouses and operating forces as an alternate sniper rifle primarily used for training. The M110 and M107 will also remain as additional weapons within the scout sniper equipment set.”




GR

Read today Barrett got a contract for MRAD rifles in .300 PRC.

.300 Win Mag's been used for many years in environments where the .308 traditionally didn't have sufficient range. The rifles carried a weight and recoil penalty. Higher recoil, even with 10 pounds of optics, can result in a greater dependency on the spotter and their optics.

The PRC, on the other hand, should extend the range well beyond what the 6.5 Creedmoor has been shown to do, into .338 Lapua Magnum territory and without as much weight and recoil penalty as either of the other magnums.

removed by poster

Loyalist Dave said:

It should be interesting to note that when Hathcock was contacted in the 1960's to be part of the reintroduction of sniping into the USMC, he had an accomplished record of competing in 1000 yard matches (iirc) with the .300 WinMag, and won The Wimbledon Cup as a Lance Corporal in 1965. While I am sure there are all sorts of logistical factors to his using a .30-06 in-the-field in Viet Nam, I find it interesting that even then the fellows winning at 1000 yards were using the cartridge that they have now settled upon in 2018.

LD

Click to expand...

I know. The sniping culture is weird in that sense, at least in the US. Procurement programs are very strong when it comes to upgrading optics, night vision, camouflage concepts, surveillance equipment, etc., but a changeover in a rifle or cartridge is like Haley's comet.

For those of you that are not aware, hunting and target shooting is not like sniping in a couple respects. first, you are required to use FMJ or non expanding bullets, second you are often going to be shooting at a bunch of enemy who will be shooting back and hunting you with very serious and motivated intent. Sometimes you will be facing another sniper and it could and has come down to the most range,with the most lethal cartridge. You might be happy with something like a 6.5 but I would not be and neither would anyone in the military. I have been in combat, superior firepower is not a trite choice as it may be to you.

d2wing said:

For those of you that are not aware, hunting and target shooting is not like sniping in a couple respects. first, you are required to use FMJ or non expanding bullets, second you are often going to be shooting at a bunch of enemy who will be shooting back and hunting you with very serious and motivated intent. Sometimes you will be facing another sniper and it could and has come down to the most range,with the most lethal cartridge. You might be happy with something like a 6.5 but I would not be and neither would anyone in the military. I have been in combat, superior firepower is not a trite choice as it may be to you.

Click to expand...

Do you have source for the info about being required to use FMJ or non-expanding bullets? That may be what the military primarily purchases, so thats what Soldiers/Marines/etc "have to" use, but I don't believe its "required." I think FMJ ammo is primarily chosen simply because of cost and its tendency to be functional in a wider variety of weapons.

KansasSasquatch said:

Do you have source for the info about being required to use FMJ or non-expanding bullets? That may be what the military primarily purchases, so thats what Soldiers/Marines/etc "have to" use, but I don't believe its "required." I think FMJ ammo is primarily chosen simply because of cost and its tendency to be functional in a wider variety of weapons.

Click to expand...

The Hague Convention. We didn't sign it, but we have always abided by it.

While hollow points are commonly used by police and civilians, they are banned in international warfare under the 1899 Hague Convention's early laws of war that the United States has followed even though the U.S. government never ratified the agreement.Jul 13, 2015

cheygriz said:

The Hague Convention. We didn't sign it, but we have always abided by it.

While hollow points are commonly used by police and civilians, they are banned in international warfare under the 1899 Hague Convention's early laws of war that the United States has followed even though the U.S. government never ratified the agreement.Jul 13, 2015

Click to expand...

That's my point. The U.S. isn't signatory so there's no requirement, even if the government chooses to abide by it.

KansasSasquatch said:

That's my point. The U.S. isn't signatory so there's no requirement, even if the government chooses to abide by it.

Click to expand...

You're correct that there is no international agreement requiring our government to abide by it.

Unfortunately, since our government freely chooses to abide, and promulgates these proscriptions through military regulations, our soldiers in the field are, uhhhhhh........ sodomized?????

"That's my point. The U.S. isn't signatory so there's no requirement, even if the government chooses to abide by it."

You do realize that the above statement makes absolutely no sense.

reasons for the 300 win mag over a 6.5cm

Penetration, 300 win mag’s extra energy will defeat more types of cover or body armor and greater distance

Procurement: a contract already exists for a reliable and proven load for the 300wm, it is a known quantity where the 6.5 is in the initial phases of DOD procurement and testing

Non-expanding ammo is used for military missions, there are times when the military (usually SOF) will get additional authority to use “special” ammo- it resembles a Barnes tripleshock if my memory serves me right, used for cqb missions where putting down the bad guys quickly is essential. I can’t find the article right now

Expanding ammo is also used in the Gwot in “special” cases when our military folks are working with law enforcement doing “LE” missions like counter piracy and are authorized to do so.

300 Win.Mag spells DRT. Love them!!

Maybe @FL-NC will chime in and tell us for sure, but it was my understanding that snipers were issued rounds using the 175g Sierra Matchking

The Sierra Matchking and other "open tipped match" bullets have been approved for use by the military as the hollow point is a part of the manufacturing process designed to ensure uniformity in the ultra-critical base of the projectile, and not to initiate expansion or fragmentation. The Hague Accords ban bullets specifically designed to expand or flatten inside the body. The match bullets were not designed to expand or flatten inside the body. Sierra claims its match bullets were designed for accuracy with little or no thought given to terminal ballistics at all, which is why they recommend against them for hunting. I believe the military started calling them "open tipped match" bullets inside of "hollow point boat tails" specifically to distance them from the negative association with expanding hollow points.

Nature Boy said:

Maybe @FL-NC will chime in and tell us for sure, but it was my understanding that snipers were issued rounds using the 175g Sierra Matchking

Click to expand...

This is true, in 308. 175 grain SMK/OTM. Nomenclature is M118LR. Replaced the M118 (173 grain) and M852 ( 168 grain Match)