Necro-thread resurrect, but a good one. Funny to see how many people are in the dark about how things really work.
I'm one of the guys who always felt the M24 was an absolute mistake in so many ways, but the accuracy and logistics problems with the M21 were such that formal sniper training schools had a really hard time keeping a consistent gun up and running. SF worked hard to make the M21 more viable with the XM25 program, but it didn't gain a lot of traction.
We really should have had an SR25 when the M24 was adopted, and allowed the system to absorb and deal with it starting around the same time SF and JSOC started buying them in the early 1990's. Only problem is the M24 was developed in the 1980's, and adopted in 1988, with units starting to take delivery in 1989.
We basically put a heavy target gun chambered in 7.62 NATO in a long action, since SF really wanted a .300 WM, slapped a crappy HS Precision stock on it with the 82nd's requirement for the butt to be adjusted down to fit in an M1950 Weapons Case, and issued it to all the Scout Platoons in Infantry Battalions. Sure, for laying in the prone on a clean range, the M24 is fine for shooting accurately and with 1st-round hit probability very high at 600m. Big deal. Now try operating with it in a light infantry, airmobile, or airborne unit where the pace of maneuver is fast, and you are rarely in one position much longer than an hour.
I always felt the M24 was a mistake, and after using it in 3 different Scout Sniper Platoons, attendance in a SOTIC MTT run by 1st SFG, and seeing it used operationally in OIF1, I confirmed my bias against it. We still got it done, but I always wanted a 7.62 Semi-Auto Sniper System based on the AR10.
I'm behind the camera in this pic. That's an M24 SWS with the horrid PVS-10 in the lower left.
And to talk about malfunctions. I had more FTFeed with the stupid M24 because of that long action with a short action cartridge. Imagine M118 bouncing around in the magazine under recoil, and the top rounds stacking back farther than the bottom ones. The M40 OTH was built right in a short action.
Funny thing, when I have asked 8541's what they chose to go outside the wire with, they said they preferred the Mk.11 over the M40A3 most of the time. I know plenty of guys have used the M40 outside the wire, but it has been significantly displaced by the self-loader.
With the superior BC pills in the .308, you can afford to go down to a shorter barrel, which allows you to shoot positions much better. Positions are reality, and the prone rarely is. Knight's has been the major factor in providing a weapon system we should have really had in 1955, and the idea that meeting the Army's requirements can be done at the same volume, at the same or higher standards, for less money is simply ignorant of the understanding of what goes into a military series of requirements. KAC got ot right with the M110C. This + 175gr is a winner.
I own a wonderful GA Precision AR in .260 Remington with a Bartlein barrel, and have owned 5 different AR10's. If someone is suggesting that any of the other manufacturers could meet the volume requirement alone, while maintaining KAC's standards, then they're talking about a company that simply doesn't exist right now. I own nothing from KAC other than an unused RAS in a box somewhere, and have no loyalty or affiliation with them. I wish I would have had an SR25 for all those years that I carried an M24 around, with its .900" muzzle.
![set](http://[url="http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.107061552717358.14713.100002405413304"]http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.107061552717358.14713.100002405413304[/url])
