Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > FIREARMS DISCUSSIONS > Centerfire Rifles - Manually Operated
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Centerfire Rifles - Manually Operated Lever action, bolt action or other non gas operated centerfire rifles.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-10-2018, 1:24 PM
blueman blueman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default USMC Scout Snipers Finally Getting Upgrade

USMC Scout Snipers will finally be getting a rifle upgrade. The Navy Seals MK13 Mod 7 in 300 WM will be replacing the Remington M40A6 in 308/7.62. The M40 series has been in service with the Corps since Vietnam and has served admirably. However, like their Army counterparts discovered, due to the tactics employed by the enemy and the terrain of Afghanistan; Jihadis would often set up 800-1000 meters away and harass US forces with PKM, Dragunov, PSL, and Lee Enfield rifles, knowing that most troops armed with M4's couldn't engage them effectively. This also put them at about the end of the effective range of M24 and M40 sniper rifle fire as well.

The Army upgraded their long action M24's with chassis systems and new barrels (M2010) and employed 300 WM MK248 Mod 0 and Mod 1 ammo, increasing their effective range to between 1200 and 1500 meters. This put Army snipers closer to 338 Lapua territory, which other NATO allies had already begun deploying. The Marines retained the M40 (short action) and the 308/7.62 with an effective range of about 1000 meters.

In addition, the M110A1 CSASS (H&K G28/MR762) will also be employed by both Army and Marine snipers for Urban/CQB missions and in the DMR role as well for regular Army infantry. This combo should give snipers from both services an adaptable platform to employ based upon mission requirements.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-10-2018, 1:27 PM
200Apples's Avatar
200Apples 200Apples is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: the southern California sardine can
Posts: 1,382
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default



https://www.huntinggearguy.com/tips/...hester-magnum/
__________________
.
"The trouble with bein' an outlaw or any kind of criminal is the company you have to keep." - Chick Bowdrie

"Darwin at his finest involves something much more flamboyant, such as firing yourself into a cliff face using a JATO pack on your car. This is merely an example of Darwin's every day work." - Wherryj

.FREE TOMMY ROBINSON!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-10-2018, 1:36 PM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 9,648
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueman View Post
This put Army snipers closer to 338 Lapua territory, which other NATO allies had already begun deploying.
I'm curious as to why the new rifle isn't a 338. Is the increased capability of the 338 not needed at this time? ( Rifle too heavy, ammo too heavy, increased costs over 300WM the dominant factors? )

-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-10-2018, 2:04 PM
blueman blueman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The main reasons are that the M24 that the Army was using was in a long action form, even though they were using 308. This was because the Army had originally planned to employ it in 300 WM back in the 80's, but stuck with 308. Probably for cost reasons. Up until the Global War on Terror, DOD was focused on missile, computer, drone, aircraft, tank, and ship advancement. Small arms upgrades took a backseat. The increased distances in Afghanistan gave the Army the opportunity to finally upgrade their long action M24's to 300 WM in the form of the M2010. The 220 grain MK248 Mod 1 ammo produced about a 1500 meter effective range which the Army felt was close enough to the 1600 meter range that the 338 Lapua 250 grain load was rated for that NATO allies we're already using. This loading was also considerably cheaper than 338 Lapua ammo.

On the Navy side, while the Army envisioned eventually employing 300 WM when they created the M24, the Seals actually employed it in the MK13. They used the older A191/MK 248 Mod 0 ammo (Federal GMM 190 grain) with great results. This was the primary setup employed by Chris Kyle. This setup is generally rated effective to about 1200 meters. Since the Marine Corps is part of the Navy, this setup was already available to them.

The 338 provides increased range and the MK21 is starting to be employed by SOCOM. But as we all know, 338 is not cost effective to shoot. I've seen Federal GMM 300 WM 190 grain for as little as $29 and Barnes Precision 220 OTM 300 WM for $49. Try getting factor 338 Lapua match for those prices. In both the Army and Marine Corps case, some mods or supply procurements of current inventoried rifles was all that was required to upgrade. Rather than having to initiate a test/procurement process for an entirely new rifle.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-10-2018, 2:28 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 4,980
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Assuming you mean Lapua rather than Winchester, yeah .338 is a whole different world. Everything is bigger, heavier, and harsher.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-10-2018, 2:51 PM
blueman blueman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Indeed. 338 Lapua rifles require not just a long action, but a magnum length action, are even heavier than our already heavy 308 and 300 WM rifles, have even more recoil, muzzle blast/flash, and the cost per round is ridiculous. The average Marine or Army infantry battalion probably doesn't want the cost and training burden of this, at least not at this time. Plus, both still train and employ the M107/82 50 BMG when they really need to blow the crud out of someone or something at long range.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-10-2018, 4:28 PM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 9,648
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blueman View Post
The main reasons...
Interesting. Thanks for the explanation.

-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-10-2018, 6:07 PM
hambam105 hambam105 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,022
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default I have handled the identical 300WM rifle of Chris Kyles' time.

Long before anyone knew of Chris Kyle I got to tag along with a few men who were into buying & shooting & evaluating long range rifles. And this I can tell you;

That is one big 300WM rifle. I am in total amazement that any one man can take that size rifle afield along with the rest of the equipment. Now I can handle the extra weight of the rifle and the equipment just as long as I don't have to demonstrate same from anywhere other than from behind this here keyboard.

The extra distance of the 300WM over the .308 is great, it's more than great. But it isn't enough. Not if you want those Marines to be fast and be stealthy.

I have it on Good Word that the Six-Five Creedmore out classes the 300WM by a good 200 yards. Same guy claims that the 6.5 can do at 1,500 what the .308 175 grainers are doing at 1,000. My sources that are making these claims were participants with more than a few others attending long range shooting classes at one of the Midwest schools that were holding classes and shooting long range matches of some sort. And you will have to rattle their cage, not mine, for validation for I haven't personally seen it, yet.

In short, if the Marines want to get another 500 yards out of their rifles they have to make a caliber switch and because both choices are non standard then might has well go for the one that covers the most real estate.

Last edited by hambam105; 05-10-2018 at 6:14 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-10-2018, 6:44 PM
blueman blueman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I've heard a lot of people talk of adopting the 6.5 Creedmoor for military applications and I believe there is definitely merit to this, especially if replacing weapon systems in the 308/7.62 category. Yes, the Creedmoor has exceptional ballistic qualities as far as long range precision shooting is concerned. However, I don't believe it should be a substitute for a 300 WM or 338 Lapua Mag when it comes to knock down or stopping power capabilities beyond 1000 meters. The purpose of these two calibers is to provide heavy hitting capability when it reaches that 1500 meter human target. A 120 to 140 grain 6.5 may be really accurate and have a high ballistic coefficient, but it's not going to hit with the same authority as a 190 grain-220 grain 30 caliber or 250 grain-300 grain 338 caliber at the same distance. I'm all for using the Creedmoor to substitute or replace what the 7.62 or 5.56 were designed to do though, but not what the 300 or 338 were designed to do. Just my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-10-2018, 11:26 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 4,980
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I'm a big fan of the 6.5 CM but those claims of "better than 300 Winmag" are stretching things a bit. As mentioned, it's not delivering huge amounts of energy way out there. Maybe all the military wants is a good wound, but if that's all they're after maybe they should consider...

wait for it...

.224 Valkyrie!

Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-10-2018, 11:33 PM
hambam105 hambam105 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 4,022
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Payload or Delivery System

Anything a 6.5 Creedmore hits a 300WM is going to hit harder.

Should the Mission of the Marine Corps Scout / Sniper Program stay as it is today, then the 300WM that I think is being discussed is too large a rifle to take afield for a 200 or 300 yard advantage over the .308.

I bet a 6.5 pill at a distance of one-five double zero will punch the ticket just as efficiently as a 5.56 does at 500 if not better.

If there is one thing the British and Marine Corps learned the hard way in desert warfare is the importance of speed. Combine the need for 'Speed and Stealth' in an urban setting, such as Ramadi or Fallujah, a 300 yard advantage isn't as important as staying undetected.

I hope the Army & Navy get a lot of 300WMs because the Marines need the opportunity to re-appropriate discarded battlefield equipment.

I am no spokesman for the Marines, anymore. I'd be a poor representative of one even on television right now. So you don't want to take the above as gospel, until later.

Last edited by hambam105; 05-10-2018 at 11:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-10-2018, 11:41 PM
Michael777 Michael777 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: SFV
Posts: 793
iTrader: 24 / 100%
Default

Why 338 when you can go 50 Bmg?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-10-2018, 11:47 PM
elSquid's Avatar
elSquid elSquid is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Left coast.
Posts: 9,648
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael777 View Post
Why 338 when you can go 50 Bmg?
Why 50BMG when you can use a Javelin?

NSFW!



Start at 2 : 54 : 10 , if the video doesn't autostart there.



-- Michael
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-11-2018, 3:53 AM
Sutcliffe Sutcliffe is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Campbell, CA
Posts: 6,238
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default Sectional density and ballistic coefficient are everything

You can take that to extremes, but a very good rule of thumb.

If you are engaging enemy personnel then any hit is likely enough to render the target dead or combat ineffective.

You can increase range over the .308 by dropping down a caliber or two without increasing the size and weight of your rifle.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-11-2018, 4:06 AM
tomrkba's Avatar
tomrkba tomrkba is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Soon to be the Bay Area Circle Jerk
Posts: 287
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

RE: Urban

The 300 WM/308 Win/6.5 debate is kinda pointless. The guys did just fine with 308 out to 1000-1200 max with a good spotter. The spotter is key; the trigger puller is almost a button the spotter presses. All of it is contextual. I can see 300WM being used for the extreme case, but the answer truly comes down to the mission at hand.

The guys I know who were in Fallujah said most of their shots were taken at 200-400 yards. They used standard issue M4’s with ACOGs and had their long range guns with them. They would use those guns too depending upon the situation. That makes sense...it was an urban environment and they spent lots of time on roofs and in taller buildings. They did perform overwatch missions for troops going door to door. The long range stuff shined when they were tasked with watching the comings and goings outside the city. They would snipe a driver that wouldn’t slow down, snipers harassing troops and civilians and so forth. Their primary mission was intel gathering but they certainly took shots when needed.

Their expanation for the two guns was: It was a war zone! Combat at any distance could happen at any time and they did not want to be stuck with a bolt action rifle and a pistol. One guy had a KAC SR25 and he just used that...but there were very few in theater and it did lose some MOA. He still sniped an officer at 1,100 or so with it. He hit only because he knew the gun and load so well by that time.

His spotter still carried an M4 and the rest of the team was armed for security. The Iraqi insurgents loved to catch teams after they deployed. It was impossible to be stealthy in Fallujah because of the stray dogs. They would always bark and give them away. Shooting them with a suppressed subgun or pistol made it worse since the pack would go nuts. More than one team was discovered because of this and several were killed before they started going out with more guys.

Personally, I use what they taught me all the time. A standard AR-15 with a decent tube on it will cover most of my self defense needs. I know how to make a 1,000 yard shot with a bolt action rifle, but I also know how to make a 300 yard shot with irons. I don’t run out and buy gear just because some unit chose it. Do what makes sense for you.
__________________
After every murder spree, the Left has its little gungasm and we fight off their political herpes.

Last edited by tomrkba; 05-11-2018 at 4:38 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-11-2018, 12:39 PM
Doheny's Avatar
Doheny Doheny is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 13,527
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

http://www.marines.mil/News/News-Dis...-sniper-rifle/
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-11-2018, 1:46 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 4,980
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomrkba View Post
The guys I know who were in Fallujah said most of their shots were taken at 200-400 yards.
Fallujah is a city. The article specifically said the impetus for using the new rifle was the experiences in Afghanistan. If they only cared about city sniping to 400 yards they're probably best off with an SPR and Mk 262.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-11-2018, 3:13 PM
DDRH's Avatar
DDRH DDRH is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,239
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

I think the 6.5CM is a good replacement for the .308/7.62.

And the 6.5PRC or 6.5SAUM would be good to replace the 300WM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-11-2018, 5:25 PM
blueman blueman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I think the current setup for both the Army and Marine Corps sniper programs to supply and provide training on a semi auto 308, a large 50 BMG, and a bolt action in 300 WM covers the array of terrain and mission requirements for current and future engagements. If future engagements find snipers being primarily employed in heavily urban settings or in a jungle or heavily forested environment with short range shots, then the semi auto 308 will be ideal. For Afghanistan or other mountainous and open desert environments with the potential for very long range shots, then the bolt action 300 WM or 50 BMG will be more ideal. The fact that snipers are being given options is what is key.

I personally believe the way American forces were armed during WWII is the most ideal. Basing arming requirements upon the job performed by the individual soldier allows for a variety of weapon systems to be employed, rather than limiting troops to one weapon system for all troops in all terrains and mission requirements.

For example, during WWII most infantry soldiers employed the M1 Garand in 30-06 Sprg. because their primary mission was to make contact with the enemy and engage them effectively. If one's mission was to process personnel files or repair automotive/aircraft/ship engines and equipment, then they were most likely armed with the M1 Carbine in 30 Carbine. The concept behind this was that support personnel were armed primarily for a defensive encounter with the enemy and having a lighter rifle that recoiled less met their training regimen of not having as extensive firearms training as say an infantry troop who trained heavily with the larger 30-06.

The same concept could be applied in today's environment as well. While military doctrine since Vietnam has been to arm every service member with the exact same rifle (M4 in our current era) and make them use it in all terrains and mission requirements, I believe the logic here is flawed. Since the Army especially, has expressed interest in doing away with the M4, I think it could still serve well with support personnel the same way the M1 Carbine served support personnel during WWII. It is lighter weight and has minimal recoil. For those whose primary role is in combat, then a rifle in a larger caliber should be considered since they will most likely receive significantly more training with it and will need to carry out both offensive and defensive tactics in all sorts of terrain with varying ranges.

Last edited by blueman; 05-11-2018 at 5:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-16-2018, 10:47 PM
Trakker's Avatar
Trakker Trakker is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South Central LA
Posts: 875
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

Logistical supply is a key. Only one type of parts to keep. But I do agree flexibility is needed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-17-2018, 1:56 AM
Horrendo Revolver Horrendo Revolver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Justin, TX
Posts: 886
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

So the marines are switching to .300 WM when SOCOM is supposedly switching to 6.5 Creedmoor in a year? Day late and a dollar short.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...und-next-year/
__________________
Purchase my new children’s book, “Woody”, the heartwarming story of an orphaned acorn who is raised by a willow tree.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-17-2018, 8:07 AM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 4,980
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

6.5 is replacing 7.62 NATO, not the Winmag.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-17-2018, 8:55 AM
Horrendo Revolver Horrendo Revolver is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Justin, TX
Posts: 886
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Oh.
__________________
Purchase my new children’s book, “Woody”, the heartwarming story of an orphaned acorn who is raised by a willow tree.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-17-2018, 9:39 AM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 43,619
iTrader: 93 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Horrendo Revolver View Post
So the marines are switching to .300 WM when SOCOM is supposedly switching to 6.5 Creedmoor in a year? Day late and a dollar short.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/y...und-next-year/
Same exterior ballistics, but one has more energy on target and costs more to shoot and wears out barrels faster while the other costs less and recoils less and has twice the barrel life of the other.
__________________
Randall Rausch

AR work: www.ar15barrels.com
Bolt actions: www.700barrels.com
Foreign Semi Autos: www.akbarrels.com
Glock, XD and M&P pistols, Benelli and Remington shotguns: barrel, sight, trigger and receiver work.
Most work performed while-you-wait, evening and weekend appointments available.
Founding member of the CAPRC
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-17-2018, 10:56 AM
k1dude's Avatar
k1dude k1dude is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: la Republika Popular de Kalifornistan
Posts: 7,802
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Ideally in Afghanistan, instead of:

5.56 x 45, 7.62 x 51, .300 WM, .50 BMG

We should have:

6.5 Grendel, 6.5 Creedmoor, .300 WM, .50 BMG
__________________
“Show me a young conservative and I'll show you a man without a heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you a man without a brain.” - Sir Winston Churchill

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” - Senator Barry Goldwater
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-17-2018, 12:00 PM
tacticalcity's Avatar
tacticalcity tacticalcity is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Rancho Cordova, California
Posts: 9,033
iTrader: 102 / 100%
Default

Betting this is more of an addition than a replacement. My entire life the military has been one month away from completely replacing the M9 and AR platform. The reality always ended up being that the new weapon system was added in very small numbers, and at most minor alterations or variations were added to the existing systems. Specialized units would get a new tool in a large tool box but the military or branch of service as a whole did not toss out the old and welcome in the new in a meaningful way. Each time the media and public bought into the idea some massive sweeping change was coming...but such things are...rare. Too costly, too many valid arguments against the new system as their are against the old, and so on.

Last edited by tacticalcity; 05-17-2018 at 12:03 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-17-2018, 3:11 PM
ar15barrels's Avatar
ar15barrels ar15barrels is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Van Nuys
Posts: 43,619
iTrader: 93 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tacticalcity View Post
Betting this is more of an addition than a replacement.
That's most likely the case.
__________________
Randall Rausch

AR work: www.ar15barrels.com
Bolt actions: www.700barrels.com
Foreign Semi Autos: www.akbarrels.com
Glock, XD and M&P pistols, Benelli and Remington shotguns: barrel, sight, trigger and receiver work.
Most work performed while-you-wait, evening and weekend appointments available.
Founding member of the CAPRC
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-17-2018, 4:38 PM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 4,980
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

I think that's the point. It's an addition of a better tool than the ones they have available now in 7.62 NATO.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-19-2018, 8:32 AM
BroncoMustang BroncoMustang is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 169
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Interesting reading. I'll bet that TacticalCity and AR15Barrels are right (that they will be introduced in small quantities or percentage of their total holdings).
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-20-2018, 6:07 AM
Roddd Roddd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 349
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Ballisticaly, the 308 is outclassed. On a flesh target, it does its job. Getting there can be a little tricky but we've been doing it for a number of years. I applaud the Marine Corps for going with the 300 WM, it's a devastating round with great ballistics. Load it with the 220 SMK like the SEALS have been doing and you have an impressive round at a (relatively) cheap cost and it's already in circulation. I think the marines should stay away from the MK13 and adopt the AI AXMC. Going from short action to long action at the drop of a hat is the bee's knees and the platform is familiar. Keep the 2112s busy by spinning new barrels (preferably carbon fiber-wrapped ones) for the AXMCs in the field. They can be individually blue printed and shipped to the shooters when needed. You keep the same ancillary equipment (tripod mount, bipod, scope/mount) and the chassis can be switched on the fly when one marine gets off the gun and another gets on it.

As far as the 6.5 Creed, it's an awesome round but I don't see it in a bolt gun in the hands of someone filling a dedicated sniper role. Instead, use said round in a semi automatic platform. Give it to DMs in infantry platoons and one member of a sniper team. Again, let the 2112s spin barrels for those as well.

I will say, if they are sourcing the MK13s from Crane, it's a sad day. The Marine Corps has talented gunsmiths and can assemble the guns for pennies on the dollar.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-20-2018, 8:10 AM
sigstroker sigstroker is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: not in CA
Posts: 4,980
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Who's got AI's now? I thought for the general forces, they avoided using foreign made guns. Spec ops only.

As for the 6.5 CM, on soft targets, i.e. human bodies w/out armor, I think it'll do fine out to the 800 yards the 7.62 NATO is supposed to be used, and reasonably okay out to 1300-1400. It may not drop 'em like a 7.62 hit, but at those ranges the 7.62 has hit the ground already.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-20-2018, 2:37 PM
blueman blueman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 133
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The Accuracy International chambered in 338 Lapua Mag is used by quite a few European combat forces sniper teams, along with the Sako TRG. For general infantry use by the Army and Marine Corps, both use Remington 700 actions and mate them with custom and or aftermarket barrels and chassis systems. For special forces teams, it will be dependent upon budget and what the command authorizes for operators to use. Not all special forces teams are using the latest and greatest in small arms. Some units use the same equipment as what is generally issued to infantry. They just receive considerably more training behind their weapons due to more mission exposure and training doctrine (funding for ammo).


The 6.5 Creedmoor is a good round and is being implemented within the Army special forces community. I believe M110's are being rechambered from 7.62 to 6.5 Creedmoor. I don't believe it is a bolt action weapon system that is being implemented as special forces snipers now have access to the M2010, Mk13, and MK21 (Remington MSR) in both 300 WM and 338 LM for really long range work.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:46 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.