GWOT Toters Of The Mk11 & 12 - C’mon In...

j-dubya · Jan 1, 2021

And this goes for our allies who have carried their country’s respective issued precision gas guns as well!

For those who carried the 11/12/M110 etc. on operations, and have also spent time hanging around here as the advantages with calibers, higher BC projectiles, and shooting sports like PRS have evolved, a discussion for you:

Base this off of your culmination of experience with barrel length/platform length during ground/aerial transpo, movement once on foot, movement through and/or clearing structures, yada yada, as well as lessons learned from dynamic competitions stateside... You’re about to leave out on deployment again able to take whatever chambering you could with ammo loaded with your projectile of choice, what would you choose in regards to your platform design and it’s ammo capability?

For the sake of this, don’t worry about re-supply or variables like that. All those are taken care of for the hypothetical scenario. What matters is a chambering that fits in either small or large frames and feeds reliably from reliable (and commercially available!) mags...again, you’re deploying with it.

Where would your balance point be? And you can have a small frame choice and a large frame choice as well. Keep in mind that the platforms will have suppressors just like their legacy counterparts, so factor that in to your consideration. Do you take lighter and faster projectiles that need barrel length to serve their advantage/as well as easier to spot for re-engagement but taking the length and weight penalty? Or will you take a more compact package that typically would mean larger and heavier projectiles that in turn bring increased recoil for spotting shots as well as more critical on being exact with ranging?

For what it’s worth, I have carried all three iterations of the sr25, the 12, and garrison time on the K1. Additionally, I have dabbled in PRS-type comps beginning with 308 and learning the hard way about smaller caliber advantages... I am curious to compare my ideas with others and their experiences for an upcoming project.

This is also where the 6 ARC concept blossomed from, regardless of how it turns out (think the Valkyrie).

DeadZeppelin · Jan 2, 2021

I guess a lot of this depends on exactly what I would be doing on said deployment. Type of ops, terrain, etc.

In a general sense, for a do all gas gun(s) here is what I would go with:

Small Frame- M4 in 5.56, 16 inch accurized barrel, loaded with Mk 262. Something like a Razor 1-10 with typical laser, suppressor and CNVD.

Large Frame- M110K1 6.5 CM, 20 inch. NF ATACR 5-25 with an offset T-2. Laser/Illuminater, suppressor and INOD.

Not being very creative as this is pretty close to what is already used, but I think these would be good setups for most situations.

j-dubya · Jan 2, 2021

I should have specified a bit better, but you’d still have your regular issue 14.5 upper and suppressor and mk262. In recent years, the lines have been really blurred with free float full size rails and especially robbing a Leupold 3-18x from somewhere else to put on top of a 14.5. So the purpose of this thread is would other guys consider that 14.5 and 1-8x/10x or even the little 3-18x leupold satisfactory for their small frame needs while being their best shooter (again, consider how the concepts that competitions have seasoned you with at this point)? Or would you elect to take something a little longer and heavier for the benefits it gives you?

DeadZeppelin · Jan 2, 2021

Oh gotcha.

I think for a "Small frame" gun, I'd stick to the portability of a 14.5/16 inch M4 with a 1-10x. Coupled with Mk262, I think its a capable platform. If I knew I was going to take shots out past 500meters regularly, I'd opt for the above "large frame" setup.

RTV · Jan 2, 2021

I see everyone choosing the Mk262 but if your gun is chambered in 5.56 and you are not limited by the Geneva Convention why would you choose that over say Black Hills 77gr TMK?

Most people seem to think the TMK is just Mk262 without the Geneva convention limiting projectiles.

Also does anyone have any expired equipment comparing the flash between Black Hills 77gr TMK and Mk262?

j-dubya · Jan 2, 2021

All I ever carried was mk262, and it’s a common, known reference point to all those I would hope to respond in this thread.

As for TMK’s, I’m still playing with them personally, and haven’t experienced any issues up to this point. But I would still have to run a whole bunch of the stuff hard trying to induce issues before I would have the confidence in ‘removable tips’ within ammo for a duty use in a gas gun. Just my opinion.

RTV · Jan 3, 2021

j-dubya said:
All I ever carried was mk262, and it’s a common, known reference point to all those I would hope to respond in this thread.

As for TMK’s, I’m still playing with them personally, and haven’t experienced any issues up to this point. But I would still have to run a whole bunch of the stuff hard trying to induce issues before I would have the confidence in ‘removable tips’ within ammo for a duty use in a gas gun. Just my opinion.

have you noticed any difference in flash levels between the TMK and Mk262?

i can completely understand your viewpoint of tried and true especially with how successful Mk262 is im sure we have all heard (and maybe a few on here have actually done it) about people overseas effectively using it all the way out to 800/900 yards.

Not only that but Mk262 seems to do some pretty nasty damage with its tumbling when it hits soft tissue at longer ranges/lower velocities. i have seen some SBR ballistic Gel tests that look like it would start to tumble/dump its energy once it penetrates in just enough to be dumping it all right where you want it. as opposed to the TMK that might just leave a lot more surface wounding.

dms416 · Jan 3, 2021

RTV said:
Most people seem to think the TMK is just Mk262 without the Geneva convention limiting projectiles.

Educate yourself please.

1) It was The Hague Convetion of 1899, not the Geneva Convention
2) While the US was in attendance, they did not sign the article (Article 4) that referred to hollow point projectiles
3) Pretty sure these articles only applied when one signatory fought another signatory.
4) OTM bullet construction and purpose designed "hollow point" are not the same animal.

RTV · Jan 3, 2021

dms416 said:
1) It was The Hague Convetion of 1899, not the Geneva Convention
2) While the US was in attendance, they did not sign the article (Article 4) that referred to hollow point projectiles
3) Pretty sure these articles only applied when one signatory fought another signatory.
4) OTM bullet construction and purpose designed "hollow point" are not the same animal.

Good info.

So from your understanding since the TMK's polymer tip is for long range ballistic performance and not terminal performance that bullet would also be "fair game?"

If the military CAN use the TMK and chooses not to then that changed the equation entirely as im sure they would have switched for the higher BC unless they had a good reason not too.

dms416 · Jan 3, 2021

RTV said:
Good info.

So from your understanding since the TMK's polymer tip is for long range ballistic performance and not terminal performance that bullet would also be "fair game?"

If the military CAN use the TMK and chooses not to then that changed the equation entirely as im sure they would have switched for the higher BC unless they had a good reason not too.

I think you could probably argue that case that the TMK use is along the same line as OTM/SMK use in that the bullet design is first and foremost about feeding and aerodynamic qualities and not terminal ballistic qualities. While Sierra advocates not using either the SMK nor the TMK for hunting, I know of some that would never use the SMK for such purposes but do use TMK. That being said, neither bullet does much of anything in terms of barrier blind performance compared to some its peers and any achieved positive terminal effectiveness is purely a bonus. I expect the major success of Mk262 over the past 20 years largely due to the distances/geography and lack of sophistication (tactics, armor, medical) of our adversaries.

Don't go looking too hard for logic and optimal performance in the bureaucratic behemoth that is the military and where they value BC compared to other factors.

Rudy Gonsior · Jan 5, 2021

Not knowing the exact mission or commander’s intention, leaves a pretty broad space to wonder in this day dream.

Since we mainly seem to be focusing on SASS setups, I’d wade in with a Mk20 (runners up would be SR25 APC or an OBR but the Mk20 reduces time in field maintenance by a significant factor) w/16” barrel, probably sticking with 7.62x51mm (AB39). I’d be tempted to rock 6.5cm and I know you said I logistics doesn’t matter in this case, but you’re fooling yourself, I mean you might as well ignore gravity if you’re going to ignore logistics.

Also although not specifically designed for it 175 SMKs have a 20% mass advantage which in not exactly marginal when it comes to performance against blind barriers like cars and glass. 6.5cm’s zipping 140 ELDs is not ballistically a slouch but that extra weight comes in handy on auto-glass and sheet metal.

The correct optics package here is the real moneymaker, a Mk5 3-18x in a Badger Condition 1 mount, offset MRDS, topped off with the Storm2 and INOD...inside of 1000m, you’d be a force to be reckoned with day or night.

RTH1800 · Jan 5, 2021

I have seen many hundreds of critters shot at short, medium and long range with Mk 262 Ammo. Not a single instance of tumbling. Not one. Animals from 20# to 320 pounds.

Does anyone actually have evidence of bullets tumbling? I’m not disputing it, just very curious.
My barrels are 7 twist, possibly slower twist barrels are the cause?

Thanks!

RTV · Jan 5, 2021

rth1800 said:
I have seen many hundreds of critters shot at short, medium and long range shot with Mk 262 Ammo. Not a single instance of tumbling. Not one. Animals from 20# to 320 pounds.

Does anyone actually have evidence of bullets tumbling? I’m not disputing it, just very curious.
My barrels are 7 twist, possibly slower twist barrels are the cause?

Thanks!

thats the best real world example i have seen.

i would really like to go out one day and chop an 18" barrel down to like 3 or 4 inches to simulate the velocity loss of longer ranges with a bunch of ballistic gel to see how the bullet really performs at longer ranges and what it is actually doing.

Rudy Gonsior · Jan 5, 2021

rth1800 said:
I have seen many hundreds of critters shot at short, medium and long range with Mk 262 Ammo. Not a single instance of tumbling. Not one. Animals from 20# to 320 pounds.

Does anyone actually have evidence of bullets tumbling? I’m not disputing it, just very curious.
My barrels are 7 twist, possibly slower twist barrels are the cause?

Thanks!

Having taught sniping professionally and having poked a fair number of folks myself with SMKs of various weights 77 through 220 (and seen many more fair more work done by others) I will say to the contrary that tumbling is in fact a common thing to see especially with (for caliber) long projectiles and when coupled with a good bit of speed. And has proven to be an adequate wounding mechanism when passing through thoracic cavities. That said based off of my personal experience in treating/examining wounds, it can be difficult to detect at times and terminal trajectories by nature are typically...non-typical.

Mk262 is particularly interesting, at speeds above 2200FPS (about 200-250m for a Mk12) you'll tend to see a high probability of fragmentation, which delightfully devastating and dramatic but once bellow that threshold that's when you typically see yawing/tumbling, which while not has exciting as fragmentation, can create very lethal predicaments. The slower a project starts and or the farther a projectile travels, the less dramatic that yawing/tumbling is presented.

I know this probably isn't blowing anyones minds as its fairly well documented and common knowledge among the initiated but for some reason it keeps resurfacing.

Alpine 338 · Jan 5, 2021

Rudy - In your experience, where would you say the max range limit would be with the Mk262 round (18" barrel) on combatants that have no body armor, and be able to take them out of the fight, either critically wounded or killed?

Alpine 338 · Jan 5, 2021

RTV - the test video you provided is interesting. Looking at the numbers, my Mk262 clone load out of a 12.5" barrel is 2610-fps, which would result in the same terminal effect at 300-yards. If I increase the velocity to represent an 18" barrel, my effective range only increases another 100-yards to represent that 2049-fps velocity in the test.

RTV · Jan 5, 2021

Alpine 338 said:
RTV - the test video you provided is interesting. Looking at the numbers, my Mk262 clone load out of a 12.5" barrel is 2610-fps, which would result in the same terminal effect at 300-yards. If I increase the velocity to represent an 18" barrel, my effective range only increases another 100-yards to represent that 2049-fps velocity in the test.

Is that MV data from a chrono?

My Triarc 12.5 is still on backorder so I haven't gotten a chance to run it through a chrono but based on what I have found online/my fiddlings with a ballistic calc I would say thats not far off but I did expect the MV to be a bit lower (2550ish) for a 12.5 barrel and about 2650ish for a 16"

Rudy Gonsior · Jan 5, 2021

Balancing realistic factors a typical SOF sniper from a solid field firing position would be able to deliver 300-400m with a Mk262 out of a Mk12 with a 99% probability of a target reduction (first round), 500-600m would likely drop you into a 80-90% and dropping to 50-70% by the time your at 700-800m. Again there are ton a variables at play but with nominal environmentals (DAY or NIGHT) those are the brackets I set in place. I know that to many it does not seem all that impressive until you're actually asked to do it and deliver the goods on command.

Edit: That said I have a good friend who, to my knowledge, probably holds the record for going distance with a Mk12(NSX 3-15x) and Mk262, which was in the ballpark of 1050ish meters (confirmed with LRF). Point being that while 600m is probably the threshold presented for a capabilities brief, Mk262 is still very lethal at distance and consistent enough to deliver the goods especially under favorable conditions, that dude was DRT with an upper thoracic hit.

Alpine 338 · Jan 5, 2021

RTV said:
Is that MV data from a chrono?

My Triarc 12.5 is still on backorder so I haven't gotten a chance to run it through a chrono but based on what I have found online/my fiddlings with a ballistic calc I would say thats not far off but I did expect the MV to be a bit lower (2550ish) for a 12.5 barrel and about 2650ish for a 16"

Yes, those numbers are correct. There are several good powders out there to mimic the Mk262 round. Initially, I was seeing around 2550 numbers, but a friend suggested to increase my powder charge, and I was able to get the higher velocity without seeing pressure. I have not had a chance to test those loads in a 16 or 18" barrel. Also, each barrel can produce faster or slower numbers.

RTV · Jan 5, 2021

Rudy Gonsior said:
Balancing realistic factors a typical SOF sniper from a solid field firing position would be able to deliver 300-400m with a Mk262 out of a Mk12 with a 99% probability of a target reduction (first round), 500-600m would likely drop you into a 80-90% and dropping to 50-70% by the time your at 700-800m. Again there are ton a variables at play but with nominal environmentals (DAY or NIGHT) those are the brackets I set in place. I know too many it does not seem all that impressive until you're actually asked to do it and deliver the goods on command.

I thought thats why its a LIGHT sniper. Lol

Rudy Gonsior · Jan 5, 2021

RTV - Yup, 77 SMKs tend to come in pairs as far as I am concerned, whether they asked for or not you're likely to get some extra loving

. Thats why I liked rocking the D60 in conjunction.

Dogtown · Jan 5, 2021

Interesting thread on one of my favorite topics.

I built a Mk12 Mod 0 clone years ago for nostalgic purposes as it was far and away my favorite deployment rifle. That being said, while it may have been amazeballs in 2002-2005, today it naturally feels a bit dated. While not as heavy or bulky as the SR25s, it still wasn't the type of rig you could easily assault with then setup overwatch. Well you could but it wasn't ideal.

So my quarantine project this past summer was to build something comparable with modern components. The goal was to make a rifle that could be employed the same way the Mk12 was designed for but a bit more versatile (ie you could clear a house without feeling like you had two rubber ducks taped together). What I ended up with is:

LMT MLR (rifle length) upper
16" 5.56mm 1:7 barrel
Triggertech Diamond AR trigger (still not sold on this)
SOPMOD collapsing stock
NX8 1-8x
Heathen Systems assaulters bipod

You could say it's a basic AR now, which it is circa 2020, but it doesn't need a lot of add-ons the Mk12 had. There's no need for a SWAN sleeve, OPS Inc brake/collar, 3" OD handguard, etc. The 1-8x is still good to Mk12 distances, but now it also is great up close without the need for secondary irons/RDS. There's still plenty of rail space for NVG-support gear, it's a few pounds lighter and a bit shorter. The collapsing stock is an issue for me because I'm an oddball who just really doesn't like using them with my support hand on the stock/bag (that's why I preferred the old A1 stocks). The Heathen bipod is a very minimalist part-time bipod that really grew on me with this rifle. No, it doesn't let you do much other than have temporary semi-stable support, but I'm finding it works well (besides, I shoot off of a ruck or bag often anyway).

In other words it passes my "would I hump/jump it?" test.

ETA: comparison pic. Also, thinking of trying 6mm ARC in this rig and swapping out the NX8 for a Vortex 1-10x I have on a .308 - slightly better scope I'm finding.

stefan73 · Jan 5, 2021

RTV said:
I see everyone choosing the Mk262 but if your gun is chambered in 5.56 and you are not limited by the Geneva Convention why would you choose that over say Black Hills 77gr TMK?

Most people seem to think the TMK is just Mk262 without the Geneva convention limiting projectiles.

Also does anyone have any expired equipment comparing the flash between Black Hills 77gr TMK and Mk262?

Before MK262 was the BH loaded with .77grn SMK's (basically the same thing). Group was rocking that stuff north and south!!

Dogtown · Jan 5, 2021

stefan73 said:
Before MK262 was the BH loaded with .77grn SMK's (basically the same thing). Group was rocking that stuff north and south!!

I'm getting flashbacks of being told that it was "all about the Le Mas round!"

RTV · Jan 5, 2021

OP- I wasn't planning on making a post of what I would choose since I'm not a vet but I feel kinda obligated to at least answer your question for whatever my .02 is worth considering I have been making so many posts on here.

My setup for deploying anywhere in the world would be the go-to gun I am currently building.

12.5" SBR with match grade barrel
Vortex Razor G3 1-10x
And a Rugged suppressors Micro30
That with a good round such as Mk262 would serve me quite well at just about anything you would reasonably ask 5.56 to do for you and if we are routinely going farther than 600m then I would want a suppressed bolt gun in 300 WM or 338.

My other project i am working on is my "Modern Mk12" its a:
13.9" AR15 in 5.56 topped off with an ATACR 4-16 an offset red dot and I am expiramenting with the Dead Air Nomad with E brake although I am concerned about it kicking up a lot of dust. (would love to get that new March 1.5-15 scope for this if they had a FFP tree reticle)

There you have it for what its worth =) hope that answered your question OP.

stefan73 · Jan 5, 2021

RTV said:
I see everyone choosing the Mk262 but if your gun is chambered in 5.56 and you are not limited by the Geneva Convention why would you choose that over say Black Hills 77gr TMK?

Most people seem to think the TMK is just Mk262 without the Geneva convention limiting projectiles.

Also does anyone have any expired equipment comparing the flash between Black Hills 77gr TMK and Mk262?

Military doesn't acknowledge the SMK's as being HP's.

RTV · Jan 5, 2021

Rudy Gonsior said:
RTV - Yup, 77 SMKs tend to come in pairs as far as I am concerned, whether they asked for or not you're likely to get some extra loving . Thats why I liked rocking the D60 in conjunction.

I'm going to have to invoke one of the sacred rules of the internet.

Pics Or It Never Happened

For real though I had just convinced myself that stocking up on two or three d60s wasn't worth it over stocking up on 15 or 20 M3 PMAGs when you go and say something like that and get my gears turning again.

Dogtown said:
ETA: comparison pic. Also, thinking of trying 6mm ARC in this rig and swapping out the NX8 for a Vortex 1-10x I have on a .308 - slightly better scope I'm finding.

I am in LOVE with the 6 ARC concept as I think the bullet weights in that diameter balance nicely with an AR15 sized gun.

My only question is why SOCOM would field it with the current mags on the market since 6.5 Grendel mags seem to leave a lot to be desired reliability wise unless they have some new mag barret came up with. Which would not surprise me given the reputation barret has.

j-dubya · Jan 5, 2021

Glad to see this thread starting to get some traction. I was starting to feel like Kenny Powers at his 4th of July party...

Rudy Gonsior said:
Balancing realistic factors a typical SOF sniper from a solid field firing position would be able to deliver 300-400m with a Mk262 out of a Mk12 with a 99% probability of a target reduction (first round), 500-600m would likely drop you into a 80-90% and dropping to 50-70% by the time your at 700-800m. Again there are ton a variables at play but with nominal environmentals (DAY or NIGHT) those are the brackets I set in place. I know that to many it does not seem all that impressive until you're actually asked to do it and deliver the goods on command.

^^^ This right here is EXACTLY why I wanted to make this thread. I see the same threads over an over like the recent “mk12 vs mod H” because they always go in the same direction: it always ends up being about ‘getting hits’. “16 can do the same as 18, so I’ll take the handiness” then “well 14.5 is close to 16, plus the military uses it” then that leads to “12.5 is so close to 14.5, the chrono says so, plus it’s so much shorter with a suppressor”...

See? Where does it stop? It’s always ‘shorter shorter shorter, because it looks sexy, feels better, AND I CAN STILL GET MY HITS’. To dudes overseas in a designated hitter role, to the match competitors stateside on the weekend, the desired result is the same, is it not? To get hits...but the other part of that equation, that always seems to get lost somewhere, is what it actually means to get those hits. The desired result is ideally getting that hit THE FIRST TIME. And if not the first time, a successful correction and re-engagement.

Think about what the GWOT weapon systems had for optics. Let’s take a mk12: 8x topend or 10x for Navy dudes. Small and fairly light, yeah, the 18” barrel and it’s suppressor was rather long and somewhat excessive in weight for those employing the system as a big m4, and just like the generation or two before them had done with just a 4x acog... that’s where the argument for shorter barrels and all that starts to come in, because it’s still being considered in the concept of an m4. PID is very important, and those optics helped. But what about when it came to engage? I’m not taking about swinging it around like a big m4 reacting to contact, but in the role as a designated hitter... where the situation might be crucial that you get your hit the first time. Where’s your hit probability with those shorter and lighter systems (m4), that recoil more (think about spotting your shots), even though you have the 8x topend which has now become all the rage? It just so happens that was a very common concept for some over ten years ago...and that was just on the m4. But what about that long and heavy mk12? What does it bring to the table to increase your hit probability?

I’m very glad Rudy joined in here, as my 12 was carried in a similar fashion as he has shown here in the past. Putting a 3-12x and later 3-15x (USMC scopes come with in rings that weigh one pound by themselves, so your optics package is around 3-1/2lbs alone) because it’s what we had, brought the mk12 to life in my opinion. Yes, it was long and heavy, but look at the direction match competitor’s rifles are headed these days...all to increase their chance of hitting those targets first in order to win. Same with barrel length: increasing speed to flatten out the trajectory and increase the probability of a hit on those targets that might have tricked them on range estimation or there wasn’t a real good surface next to the target to get a return on with the laser, or perhaps the target you actually have to engage upon is on the small side... Weight: the heavy mk12 with huge scope would jus sit there when fired, allowing you to see if and where a corrected follow up shot was needed. Even an m4 can pull you off target enough to not see where you need to correct, and that’s if the target doesn’t change its presentation after realizing what’s going on...if the objective is just to “get your hits”, why isn’t the dude the fired ten rounds in a stage scored the same as a dude that only had to fire one? That same scenario in a combat zone may not permit those ten rounds needed, or even the third of three needed, to hit your target because the target is now gone... now you didn’t “get your hits”...

40m, 500m, &600m is a good and fair example here: For those that like the shorter barrels, because they can get the same hits, where do you stand on the KYL rack with your rifle? Conditions are favorable, is I’m sure most would agree are necessary at that 600m distance and proceeding even further. How about with a longer barrel 16-18 - and heavier - in your grasp? Let’s say it’s off a barricade of some sort, just like a mud wall or window ledge, and you don’t have half a dozen bags or pillows that you carried out on this mission...if you miss you can re-engage with one more round if you can make a confident correction.

My point on all this long-winded post, and original intent of the thread, is knowing what you know now with both inserting with a weapon system and carrying it throughout the completion of the mission, along with where the match rifle’s winning concepts have gone, where is your balance point? Now that better chamberings are coming along, and new strategies of balancing the cartridge to the platform for the highest probability of success, what would be your balance point? You made the long-suppressed 18-incher work before, would you accept it again to increase your hit probability and expand that and it’s range with a 6mm Arc for example? Or was the mk12 too long, period...Any platform you board a helo with and hike around with now needs to be shorter and lighter, and you’ll take the expense of velocity and increased recoil, and the detriments it brings. Again, you are a designated hitter here, not just a dude reacting to contact... that’s the same as a match competitor trying to win.

Energy on target and which caliber/chambering I was hoping to leave to a different phase of discussion.

bantaman2 · Jan 6, 2021

If I could take 2 guns it would be a pretty simple division of roles. 1 gun for dedicated movement/CQB/Chow gun and 1 gun for static/blocking position/long-range work.

The short-range gun would be a Sig MCX 8.5'' .300 blackout.
-Razor 1-6 JM1 reticle
-whatever full power laser
-modlite light
-201gr Lehigh subsonic
-110gr TTSX supersonics
-Lightweight suppressor

Long-range gun would be an 18'' Seekins SP10M in .260
-Leupold mk8 3.5-25 Tremor 3
-Tbac suppressor
-RAPTAR LRF/illuminator
-Modlite light
-Offset T2
-full length ARCA rail
-RRS Tripod plus head

That stuff covers all the things I have had to do

stefan73 · Jan 6, 2021

bantaman2 said:
If I could take 2 guns it would be a pretty simple division of roles. 1 gun for dedicated movement/CQB/Chow gun and 1 gun for static/blocking position/long-range work.

The short-range gun would be a Sig MCX 8.5'' .300 blackout.
-Razor 1-6 JM1 reticle
-whatever full power laser
-modlite light
-201gr Lehigh subsonic
-110gr TTSX supersonics
-Lightweight suppressor

Long-range gun would be an 18'' Seekins SP10M in .260
-Leupold mk8 3.5-25 Tremor 3
-Tbac suppressor
-RAPTAR LRF/illuminator
-Modlite light
-Offset T2
-full length ARCA rail
-RRS Tripod plus head

That stuff covers all the things I have had to do

I think considerations for the environment needs to be taken into account. For example operating in Baghdad vs the villages around the COP we had in the Arghandab valley. I had a company in a week long TIC in the southern area of that valley, they used plunging fire from mountain tops using PKM's at around 2,100 meters. My snipers were not very successful dealing with that. Our 60mm mortars ruled that fight and worked over the guys on the reverse slop of the mountain.

RTH1800 · Jan 6, 2021

I have no military experience but a great deal of experience with the AR platform in my varmint hunting, deer hunting and guiding as well as deer culling. Overall a very great number of rounds on target. I am on my 5Th barrel on my main AR.

First I would say Rudy is absolutely correct in his evaluation of hit % and range. I do not shoot mine past 600M but to that range his experience is exactly what I observe.

All references below are to actual issue Mk 262 Ammo. Not BH equivalent etc. Nothing works like the real deal 262.

I have never in any instance seen evidence of a bullet tumbling once it strikes. Not once. I recently ask the worlds most experienced big game hunter if he had ever observed bullet tumbling. He has not. This man has hunted about everything that walks, been on over 125 safaris and thousands of hunts worldwide.

I am not saying it does not happen and am interested in actual results showing it. I also don't think tumbling bullets are the answer to lethality. Why go to the trouble to perfectly place a bullet only to have it go somewhere else? I am simply curious about the claims.

I also see a large difference in the kills with barrels from 11.5"-18" on game.
My observations differ with others and I cannot explain the reason.
Much as I like the 11.5" barrels I find them miserable killers. So much so that I simply do not use them in the field.
16" barrels are quite usable and effective.
18" barrels stand apart from all shorter barrels and the difference is obvious in the kills.

I also wonder about folks having issue with carrying an 18" AR with a suppressor. I guide ladies and smaller children who carry my rifle with no issue. (I carry bino, spot and a RRS tripod. )

Just my personal observations.

Photos added from one of this week's youth hunters. Holes are exit wounds. Both shots well placed at 130 and 250 meters. Mk 12 and Mk 262 get it done for us. That is my well used AR on it’s 5th barrel.

j-dubya · Jan 6, 2021

rth1800 said:
I have no military experience but a great deal of experience with the AR platform in my varmint hunting, deer hunting and guiding as well as deer culling. Overall a very great number of rounds on target. I am on my 5Th barrel on my main AR.

First I would say Rudy is absolutely correct in his evaluation of hit % and range. I do not shoot mine past 600M but to that range his experience is exactly what I observe.

All references below are to actual issue Mk 262 Ammo. Not BH equivalent etc. Nothing works like the real deal 262.

I have never in any instance seen evidence of a bullet tumbling once it strikes. Not once. I recently ask the worlds most experienced big game hunter if he had ever observed bullet tumbling. He has not. This man has hunted about everything that walks, been on over 125 safaris and thousands of hunts worldwide.

I am not saying it does not happen and am interested in actual results showing it. I also don't think tumbling bullets are the answer to lethality. Why go to the trouble to perfectly place a bullet only to have it go somewhere else? I am simply curious about the claims.

I also see a large difference in the kills with barrels from 11.5"-18" on game.
My observations differ with others and I cannot explain the reason.
Much as I like the 11.5" barrels I find them miserable killers. So much so that I simply do not use them in the field.
16" barrels are quite usable and effective.
18" barrels stand apart from all shorter barrels and the difference is obvious in the kills.

I also wonder about folks having issue with carrying an 18" AR with a suppressor. I guide ladies and smaller children who carry my rifle with no issue. (I carry bino, spot and a RRS tripod. )

Just my personal observations.

Your experience is absolutely relevant here. It brings to light the capabilities of speed in terminal ballistics, as well as the barrel length discussion and your experiences across the spectrum.

Rudy’s range-based probability percentages almost mirror mine, and I hope that begins to put some perspective on useable ranges and “getting hits” for one’s chosen platform. It’s good to keep this centered on mk262 since it’s a well-known standard by mil dudes and civ shooters alike. I never much cared for using the short upper, as the novelty of it wore off pretty quick for me. So my experience is 14.5” and 18”. Even between those two, there’s an observable difference between those two lengths for 77gr in both flying to target and effect on target.

18” can seem cumbersome, especially with suppressor, but it was made to work when there wasn’t a choice otherwise (other than just taking the 14.5). But it’s still workable, even in urban settings and moving through structures. Definitely not ideal, but acceptable to me. However, though a 24” barrel would offer even more gains in ballistics, it’s is too unreasonable for ground and aerial movement. So for my response to my thread, I’m perfectly fine with a suppressed 18”, even in vehicles and structure work, for the benefits it provides in serving in that designated hitter role. And I think that’s going to be a very important consideration as advancements like the 6ARC come along... I personally think choosing a shorter barrel for that would be handicapping the very reason that round is coming in to existence for... My same assessment goes for large frame stuff too: while I will never voluntarily use that 2lb Knight’s suppressor again, I would likely still choose 18-20” over the new style 16” for 6.5 or even 6mm just so I can fully reap its benefits to have my highest probability of success. The mk12’s and mk11’s showed me that, while cumbersome, it was still possible to insert with them, move around with them, etc, instead of just jumping on the shorter shorter shorter train.

Mban2 · Jan 6, 2021

stefan73 said:
I think considerations for the environment needs to be taken into account. For example operating in Baghdad vs the villages around the COP we had in the Arghandab valley. I had a company in a week long TIC in the southern area of that valley, they used plunging fire from mountain tops using PKM's at around 2,100 meters. My snipers were not very successful dealing with that. Our 60mm mortars ruled that fight and worked over the guys on the reverse slop of the mountain.

You are correct in wanting to consider the environment in which you are working. My choices would cover a very general and wide envelope of possibilities. It wouldn’t be perfect for the mountains of afghanistan, or the urban streets of Kobani, but it will do both relatively well. I have been deployed in one country, and a week later sent to a completely different country to fight.

ckirkc · Jan 6, 2021

100% 16-18" 6mm arc over any large frame gasser. I've carried those and while they serve some niche roles well, their capability to weight ratio is dismal. To the guy that posting he put a nf 5-25 on his, I remember carrying that thing on tgt and immediately regretting the scope choice. If the large frame gasser were the tool for the job I'd never put more than a 1-6 or 1-8 sized scope on it, or that 1-10 vortex. My preferred set up is CTSR/2010 Biathlon style on my back with m4 in my hands. Of course, the mission always dictates tool selection.

Dogtown · Jan 6, 2021

ckirkc said:
If the large frame gasser were the tool for the job I'd never put more than a 1-6 or 1-8 sized scope on it, or that 1-10 vortex.

Yup, what a long way we have come in the last 15-20 years.

Alpine 338 · Jan 6, 2021

Since my military days have long since passed, I have no illusions of ever having a weapon in hand again in that capacity. But then again, no one can predict the future.

I do have a lot of experience shooting team matches, where typically I am the carbine shooter. I have created some very accurate Mk262 clone ammo using the 77-SMK, but my time to load multiple different calibers for various matches is far too valuable to load as much as I would prefer. I have found, Mk262 to be surprisingly accurate. Actually accurate enough to not even bother reloading 5.56
Years ago, I was able to score quite a bit of surplus Mk262 at very reasonable prices, and have sent thousands of rounds of it down range. Most but a handful of that has all been shot up in team matches. I think I have 600-rounds of surplus set aside for a rainy day per say. Recently, I've had to resort to the BHA commercial variant of Mk262.
Although my experiences with Mk262 are all on static steel targets, I cannot add any value to the conversation as to terminal performance, but I can speak intelligently on it ballistic performance in the field.
My first choice is the 18" barrel for the round. I have used factory LMT match barrels (no longer in production), and currently using custom SPR profile Bartlein Barrels. I have also used these both suppressed and unsuppressed.
One particular team match I've been shooting for 10 years now, the targets are typically 10" or less in size, and typically placed out to 600-yards, with the occasional bonus target out further.
I feel the Mk12 using the Mk262 round is a very capable weapons system. My own experiences show that first round hits on small targets out to 600-yards are easily attained as long as your Dope is accurate, and the wind is not too harsh. Make those human size torso targets, and I would be comfortable to say that first round hits at distances out to 800-yards are realised.
Again my weapons systems are Hybrid Mk12 clones, either using S&B 4-16x42 or 3-20x50 optics.

During a team match. Typically these team match formats are aquire, range, and engage targets under a strict time limit. Carbine Shooter first, then Rifle Shooter. When I'm shooting, my teammate is ranging and spotting for me.

stefan73 · Jan 6, 2021

ckirkc said:
100% 16-18" 6mm arc over any large frame gasser. I've carried those and while they serve some niche roles well, their capability to weight ratio is dismal. To the guy that posting he put a nf 5-25 on his, I remember carrying that thing on tgt and immediately regretting the scope choice. If the large frame gasser were the tool for the job I'd never put more than a 1-6 or 1-8 sized scope on it, or that 1-10 vortex. My preferred set up is CTSR/2010 Biathlon style on my back with m4 in my hands. Of course, the mission always dictates tool selection.

We had an M1A that we kept it in the back seat of one of the HMMWV's, it was fun to shoot and not the most accurate thing in the world but it was more precise than the M240B's we had. While in Iraq in 05/06 (Baghdad) I used a Leupold M/RT 1.5-5 illuminated. I would have liked a true 1-5 but. Anyways the ability to transition from outside engagement to entering and clearing an 8 story building with only ambient sunlight from outside windows was handy.

RTV · Jan 6, 2021

i keep hearing people talk about the difference between Mk262 that black Hills Loads for civilians and the Milsurp Mk262 with the Milsurp being better.

what differences have people noticed?
I remember reading that Jeff Hoffman said the only difference was the civilian ammo came in a prettier box.

RTH1800 · Jan 6, 2021

Speed, temp stability and flash suppression.

j-dubya · Jan 6, 2021

ckirkc said:
100% 16-18" 6mm arc over any large frame gasser. I've carried those and while they serve some niche roles well, their capability to weight ratio is dismal. To the guy that posting he put a nf 5-25 on his, I remember carrying that thing on tgt and immediately regretting the scope choice. If the large frame gasser were the tool for the job I'd never put more than a 1-6 or 1-8 sized scope on it, or that 1-10 vortex. My preferred set up is CTSR/2010 Biathlon style on my back with m4 in my hands. Of course, the mission always dictates tool selection.

Would you please expand a bit more on the 6ARC experiences and a bit more on choosing it over large frames? Even a large frame with a better chambering in 6 or 6.5?

stefan73 · Jan 6, 2021

Early days group used BHA and then we (the Army) eventually saw the MK 262 MOD 0. Is there any difference besides the packaging or the brass headstamps? I can't say

Alpine 338 · Jan 6, 2021

RTV said:
i keep hearing people talk about the difference between Mk262 that black Hills Loads for civilians and the Milsurp Mk262 with the Milsurp being better.

what differences have people noticed?
I remember reading that Jeff Hoffman said the only difference was the civilian ammo came in a prettier box.

Yes, generally true. The commerical packaged stuff is contract over-runs. However, I have seen it made with outside of contract specified brass to meet civilian demand.

My experience with both surplus Mk262, and commercially packaged variants is there can be quite a bit of variations in velocity and ES/SD performance. I've had some Mk262 that was really hot and would have flattened and pierced primers more often then not.
These variations for the surplus stuff is typically associated with certain lot years. My favorite lot was 06 vintage using WCC brass. I cant recall off the top of my head which was the worst??? Maybe 08/09??? I've noticed the new stuff has been using LC brass lately.

flyfisherman246 · Jan 30, 2021

Let’s bump this to the top, I enjoyed reading people’s inputs.

MK20 · Jan 31, 2021

Scar 17 with 1-8 NF ATACR for doing everything reasonably well. MK316 Mod 0 equivalent Ammo. Basically FGMM.

However, if you don’t plan on seeing an area where there are regularly high winds or ranges over 800m I would go with the MK12 ish type rifle with MK262 ish ammo. Think for an area like Florida or Mississippi.

SFree · Jan 31, 2021

Stupid question for you who’s experience in theater is without question...
Is large frame gas gun too cumbersome if the engagement distance is beyond 5-600 meters? Capability to weight ratio was mentioned, so where would the bolt gun come in picture? Gasser still have the advantage for suppressing fire?
Sorry for my ignorance, just an old scum of the earth construction worker who cherishes military history and you guys are that history...

Rudy Gonsior · Jan 31, 2021

SFree said:
Stupid question for you who’s experience in theater is without question...
Is large frame gas gun too cumbersome if the engagement distance is beyond 5-600 meters? Capability to weight ratio was mentioned, so where would the bolt gun come in picture? Gasser still have the advantage for suppressing fire?
Sorry for my ignorance, just an old scum of the earth construction worker who cherishes military history and you guys are that history...

Well experience is always in question.

For me, I felt bolt guns provided an extra edge in terms of practical accuracy and distance. Mechanically bolt guns are just easier to shoot and typically chambered (at least if you’re talking about the last half of GWOT and you’re not a Marine) in some a little more stout than 7.62x51mm. The first round hit probability with a Mk13 or M2010 all things equal is going to be higher.

If the situation was likely to be more deliberate or at distance beyond that 600-800 threshold then I’d roll with a bolt. If it was likely to be inside of that and or a little more dynamic then the gas gun comes out. If there was a situation where I was trying to maximize weight reduction or ammunition commonality might be an thing, or if there was a perceived chance of being pressed into an assaulter roll...then a small frame gas gun might fit the bill. If I felt like particularly being a dick or I might have to cover down constantly on some 1500+ meters then the M107 was in play.

Forgetful Coyote · Feb 1, 2021

Rudy Gonsior said:
Balancing realistic factors a typical SOF sniper from a solid field firing position would be able to deliver 300-400m with a Mk262 out of a Mk12 with a 99% probability of a target reduction (first round), 500-600m would likely drop you into a 80-90% and dropping to 50-70% by the time your at 700-800m. Again there are ton a variables at play but with nominal environmentals (DAY or NIGHT) those are the brackets I set in place. I know that to many it does not seem all that impressive until you're actually asked to do it and deliver the goods on command.

Edit: That said I have a good friend who, to my knowledge, probably holds the record for going distance with a Mk12(NSX 3-15x) and Mk262, which was in the ballpark of 1050ish meters (confirmed with LRF). Point being that while 600m is probably the threshold presented for a capabilities brief, Mk262 is still very lethal at distance and consistent enough to deliver the goods especially under favorable conditions, that dude was DRT with an upper thoracic hit.

In Lone Survivor, they’ve got Ahmad Shah in sight, lasered at ~612m. Lt Murphy asks Luttrell(who’s carrying a Mod 1) if he can hit him from that far? Luttrell replies “negative”.

I would think in the favorable high altitude conditions of Afgh, 612m should be a very good bet.. but what do I know?

MK20 · Feb 1, 2021

Guarantee first round hit in the mountains, with local wind conditions, with 5.56?
Hmm...

Bambamoda · Feb 1, 2021

bantaman2 said:
If I could take 2 guns it would be a pretty simple division of roles. 1 gun for dedicated movement/CQB/Chow gun and 1 gun for static/blocking position/long-range work.

The short-range gun would be a Sig MCX 8.5'' .300 blackout.
-Razor 1-6 JM1 reticle
-whatever full power laser
-modlite light
-201gr Lehigh subsonic
-110gr TTSX supersonics
-Lightweight suppressor

Long-range gun would be an 18'' Seekins SP10M in .260
-Leupold mk8 3.5-25 Tremor 3
-Tbac suppressor
-RAPTAR LRF/illuminator
-Modlite light
-Offset T2
-full length ARCA rail
-RRS Tripod plus head

That stuff covers all the things I have had to do

I’d hate to be shooting anything moving past about 70 meters with subsonic bullets.

I don’t know the TOG of sub 300 blackout but I’d say you’d need 3 guns. Something to really cover your medium range targets.....because they’ll eventually be moving.

Bambamoda · Feb 1, 2021

Forgetful Coyote said:
In Lone Survivor, they’ve got Ahmad Shah in sight, lasered at ~612m. Lt Murphy asks Luttrell(who’s carrying a Mod 1) if he can hit him from that far? Luttrell replies “negative”.

I would think in the favorable high altitude conditions of Afgh, 612m should be a very good bet.. but what do I know?

Wasn’t it Luttrell who still had his full load out when he was captured?

Watch Out for Scammers!

GWOT Toters Of The Mk11 & 12 - C’mon In...

A-Driver for Doobby’s Taxiola

Private

A-Driver for Doobby’s Taxiola

Private

Rock the Vote

A-Driver for Doobby’s Taxiola

Rock the Vote

Sergeant

Rock the Vote

Sergeant

Breaker of Things and Fundamental Fanatic

Supporter

Rock the Vote

Breaker of Things and Fundamental Fanatic

Lumberjack

Lumberjack

Rock the Vote

Breaker of Things and Fundamental Fanatic

Lumberjack

Rock the Vote

Breaker of Things and Fundamental Fanatic

Ke = (mv^2)/2

Sergeant

Ke = (mv^2)/2

Rock the Vote

Sergeant

Rock the Vote

A-Driver for Doobby’s Taxiola

Private

Sergeant

Supporter

A-Driver for Doobby’s Taxiola

Private

Sergeant

Ke = (mv^2)/2

Lumberjack

Sergeant

Rock the Vote

Supporter

A-Driver for Doobby’s Taxiola

Sergeant

Lumberjack

Private

Major Member

Sergeant

Breaker of Things and Fundamental Fanatic

Sergeant

Major Member

Private

Private

Similar threads