• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Army ditching 308 win?

D

dareposte

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Mar 4, 2010
451
0
114
Grand Rapids, MI
www.dop3.com
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

The Army has been using Long Actions so that if they ever made this change they could use existing actions so for once they are ahead of themselves.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Army has been using Long Actions so that if they ever made this change they could use existing actions so for once they are ahead of themselves. </div></div>

This.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Falar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Army has been using Long Actions so that if they ever made this change they could use existing actions so for once they are ahead of themselves. </div></div>

only thing is, by the time they finally decide to do it, all the rifles will be worn out anyways, and they'll just order new.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

That turns out not to be the case. Many of the M24s are being rechambered to .300 Win Mags, some of them in AI chassis systems as MK 13s.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JamieD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thet would be interesting. I wonder if they are going to suppress them?

JamieD</div></div>


The USN is using Knights suppressors on their Mk13 Mod5 rifles.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Later</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JamieD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thet would be interesting. I wonder if they are going to suppress them?

JamieD</div></div>


The USN is using Knights suppressors on their Mk13 Mod5 rifles. </div></div>

LC, arent those suppressors kind of an "after thought" as to the attachement method?
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

I recall reading that it was expedient.

They would be better off buying something better...
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

I place about as much faith in a Popular Mechanics articles being accurate and reliable as I do when my plumber tries to convince me he's not price-gouging. Seems like everything related to the military that PM reports on flops or never gets created in the first place. I could actually see this happening as an intermediate rifle, but with as much 7.62 ammunition in the system as there is, I foresee this being a difficult transition if it ever happened.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

i was under the impression that they where looking at new alternatives to the m24.... like an enhanced AR platform for quick follow ups ect.

?
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

They do have M24 systems in .300WM which is being used by ODA Tm's. I haven't seen or heard of anybody else using these systems but it is not unlikely that units in Afghanistan wouldn't have said systems.
I've also seen the .300WM on an AI chasis. They have an interesting taper for the barrel in order to mount that suppressor.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eagle_eye</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i was under the impression that they where looking at new alternatives to the m24.... like an enhanced AR platform for quick follow ups ect.

?

</div></div>
We have Squad Designated Marksman rifles aka SDM's which are basically M16A4's with a free floated barrel and I'm not sure is there is anything else.

I can't remember the nomenclature off hand but we also have a .308 AR platform rifle I can't remember if it was called the 108 or whatever. I've seen them, held them, played with them and that is about it.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

Quick question......do they feel the need for longer range capability because of the environment they are in currently? Snipers are able to take longer and longer shots because the terrain allows it, what happens when the theater changes and the needs are different? Or is the long action round they are thinking of changing to that much better overall than what they are using currently? I'm not projecting, I'm actually curious.

Kelly
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USACS</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I place about as much faith in a Popular Mechanics articles being accurate and reliable as I do when my plumber tries to convince me he's not price-gouging. </div></div>

My sentiment exactly. As soon as I read it I was thinking to myself how wrong is this... better check on the 'hide. Its somewhat convincing because there really may be a need for longer range accuracy in the desert, and the M24 is a long action (which I didn't know) making it somewhat more feasible. I guess they would just change the mag box, barrel, and bolt head and they would be gtg.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

I wonder if to be able to take out equipment with different ammunition making it a more flexible tool in the field. The 300WM with the right bullet should be able to do a good bit of damage to vehicles, equipment and barrier penetration.

I would be interesting to here from the guys in the field and heat what they are saying as to why.


JamieD
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

Since Big Green has adopted the M110, there is no reason not to rechamber the M24's to .300 WM. The .308 won't be going anywhere, it is sufficient for about 80% of sniping duties. They have already developed improved long range loads for the WM, now they have a multi-tiered response. SDMR, M110, M24 and .50 Cal.
Kinda like having a pitching wedge, a good iron, a fairway wood and a driver.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: fdkay</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Since Big Green has adopted the M110, there is no reason not to rechamber the M24's to .300 WM. The .308 won't be going anywhere, it is sufficient for about 80% of sniping duties. They have already developed improved long range loads for the WM, now they have a multi-tiered response. SDMR, M110, M24 and .50 Cal.
Kinda like having a pitching wedge, a good iron, a fairway wood and a driver. </div></div>
I think they are looking at something to bridge the gap between the wood and the driver since the driver imo isn't all that great. I would say the idea is to get a little more range without the weight and size of the driver.
It's good for what it was designed (the driver) for but I do not really see it as a long distance precision weapon I think a McMillan or EDM would be better suited for this duty but that is me drifting off topic.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

This weekend I competed in a sniper match in guilford county NC. There was a guy from the army there 5th group I think, I asked him if they have see the weapon yet and he said they were testing or using it, cant remember which. he said the only problem with it is it has a really short barrel life. which would make sense if they are sending 220 grain rounds out the tube at 2800 fps + or - 50fps. thats a really hot round at least according to my nosler,sierra and speer manual.

I do think its a step in the right direction though. but as stated above there prob. were some better choices wheather economical or tactical out there.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

The existing A191 military .300 WM round, now renamed Mark 248 Mod 0, is also a hot load, throwing a 190 SMK at 2950 fps or so, and is a barrel burner. But barrels are not that expensive.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

10th SF GRP is using the .300WM Rem 700 action on an AI chassy. I kick myself everyday for not taking up their weapons sergeant on the offer to go shoot it out here. It felt ok, but I think I would like a different stock, just personal preference he had a NXS mounted on it.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

Just ran into some Army snipers, and they just received their M-24's from re-fit. They are shooting the 300WM but still have the original stocks (not the AICS) and are still using Leupold Mark IV's.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Eagle_eye</div><div class="ubbcode-body">i was under the impression that they where looking at new alternatives to the m24.... like an enhanced AR platform for quick follow ups ect.

?

</div></div>

We have a Marine Scout Sniper here who says he was using the Mk 11 Mod 0 last time he was in Iraq. I think the Army calls it a M110 or something like that. From what he told me, it's basicaly a modified .308 AR.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

Both the Mk 11 Mod 0 and the M110 are semi-auto 7.62X51 rifles built by Knight's Armament Corporation. The M110 has been designated to replace the M24. Many of the M24s are being converted to .300 Win Mag, but lots are currently still in use.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tman300wm</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just ran into some Army snipers, and they just received their M-24's from re-fit. They are shooting the 300WM but still have the original stocks (not the AICS) and are still using Leupold Mark IV's. </div></div>
That would make sense. They just leave the Leupold L/RT's in place and change the caliber.
I'm going to have to really check into this when I rotate back to the normal Army and off of this MiTT assignment here in Iraq.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

Hell, use AKO -- you can touch anyone in the Army.

Old news -- 10th Mountain has had SOCOM Mark 13s on loan, and 25th ID wrote the requirements letter. Army Times photo:
080108at_snipers_800.JPG
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

i heard the same thing on the military channels ultimate weapons show last year. the guns looked like the new remington tac mod sys.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

So 25th ID did the PR&C?

Was this done durring MG Oates time at 10th Mountain? I could see him pushing it (he is a damn good General imo).

That is the same setup 10th GRP had minus the suppressor.

I'll have to try and track down a friend of mine.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

Not a Purchase Request and Contract but a Combat Need Statement to the G3 -- then it becomes Mother Army's problem to pay for thru G8 channels.

G3/5/7 and G8 then got Mark 13s on loan/lease from USSOCOM -- they are indeed SOCOM rifles shooting SOCOM DODAC ammo.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are shooting the 300WM but still have the original stocks (not the AICS) and are still using Leupold Mark IV's.
</div></div>

I had heard that they were just going to convert them to 300 Win Mag, but the crane rifles look like a complete conversion.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SFC Carpentier jr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here is a photo of another 300 Win mag that some special units were testing.

300win.jpg
</div></div>



Izzat a Browning action?

It's good to see that Big Army is working with feedback from the troops.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

Yep, it's a BAR II.

The Arms Tech SMIR we had (circa 1993-4) were in a MacMillan A3 stock. Very effective system, real-world deployed with a number of kills (this one doesn't have a brake).

clip_image002smir.jpg


The loan Mark 13s aren't M24s -- they're purpose-built. I don't believe the final M24 design has been settled yet.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not a Purchase Request and Contract but a Combat Need Statement to the G3 -- then it becomes Mother Army's problem to pay for thru G8 channels.

G3/5/7 and G8 then got Mark 13s on loan/lease from USSOCOM -- they are indeed SOCOM rifles shooting SOCOM DODAC ammo. </div></div>
So they are just on loan vs purchased. Ok, I understand now.
Otherwise you would need the PR&C with the combat needs statement to justify the purchase. Funny thing though is that at Campbell we were required to do a PR&C for the M1A's we brought to Iraq with us.
I'm suprised that USSOCOM let them borrow their weapons! That really seams out of place for them! Is it a new kinder, gentler side?

Socom Dodac ammo? All I saw ODA Tm's using was LR stuff minus some Lapua ammunition. I think they are using the LR which is not SOCOM specific unless they are shooting Lapua ammo?
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

People in SOCOM shooting the .300 WM routinely use the DODAC A191 cartridge with a 190 SMK now referred to as the Mk 248 Mod 0. The Mk 248 Mod 1, with a 220 grain SMK, will replace that cartridge.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

PR&C would have been for an M1A purchase. You could have got M14s free from the depot at Anniston -- then again you would have had to pay someone to tune, re-barrel, or put on rails, mounts, and scopes.

A formal Army request and Military Interagency Procurement Request (MIPR) is a transfer of money for service or equipment -- no favors there, it's business.

M118LR quality has gone into the shitter and availability has been spotty -- one of the reasons SOCOM specified its own M118 LR equivalent (Mark 316) so we can both actually get ammo delivered with quality assurance without wading through Army bureaucracy.

I have shot dozens of different commercial SOCOM-purchase match and special purpose ammo (Lapua, RUAG, Remington, Winchester, Black Hills, etc.) for different applications (we can specify exactly what we want in our loads). It is much easier for SOCOM than using Ammunition Procurement, Army (APA) money specifically assigned by Congress (by law) and controlled by the G3 to buy ammo.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

tman300wm,
All I have seen is the AI stocks on 300WM weapons, in an SF unit. We are got our M24 replaced with an M110. I personally think the M110 is hands down the way to go. The increased fire power with .5 to 1 MOA accuracy really kick ass!!! It gives you sniper power while also giving you close quarters/high intensity conflict fire power.
I am willing to bet converting an old M24 cost nearly as much as a new rifle, especially with the governments purchasing prices.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">PR&C would have been for an M1A purchase. You could have got M14s free from the depot at Anniston -- then again you would have had to pay someone to tune, re-barrel, or put on rails, mounts, and scopes.

A formal Army request and Military Interagency Procurement Request (MIPR) is a transfer of money for service or equipment -- no favors there, it's business.

M118LR quality has gone into the shitter and availability has been spotty -- one of the reasons SOCOM specified its own M118 LR equivalent (Mark 316) so we can both actually get ammo delivered with quality assurance without wading through Army bureaucracy.

I have shot dozens of different commercial SOCOM-purchase match and special purpose ammo (Lapua, RUAG, Remington, Winchester, Black Hills, etc.) for different applications (we can specify exactly what we want in our loads). It is much easier for SOCOM than using Ammunition Procurement, Army (APA) money specifically assigned by Congress (by law) and controlled by the G3 to buy ammo. </div></div>
Aha!!
Thanks, you have cleared up some questions I had. The PR&C was probably for the Sage EBR stocks we purchased and I believed I was confused as we did get our M1A's from the depot if memory serves me correctly and it did cost use since we needed them refurbished to meet operating standards.

This is actualy the first I heard about the ammunition procurement deal. Do you have a POC for this and the request or this this Socom specific? If not I would love this documentation!!

Thanks for the information it is very helpful!!!!

 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

G3 Ammo at HQDA (Pentagon) does all the fine-nug ammo and money transfer paperwork (for .300 Win Mags) -- Leg Army doesn't get a whole lot of ammo from SOCOM (77s for the 3rd ID's DMRs being the last big transfer) -- I just shoot it.
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

am i to take this to mean that nephilim and or anunaki body armor is now thought to withstand current .308 offerings but that perhaps 300 win mag cant pierce those angelic hosts? and will this conversion be ready by 2012ish?
 
Re: Army ditching 308 win?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">G3 Ammo at HQDA (Pentagon) does all the fine-nug ammo and money transfer paperwork (for .300 Win Mags) -- Leg Army doesn't get a whole lot of ammo from SOCOM (77s for the 3rd ID's DMRs being the last big transfer) -- I just shoot it. </div></div>

Last ammo request I did I went through 1st Army and Forscom to HQDA to get approval to conduct a range density at Fort Chaffee Arkansas (for 1-393rd IN AC/RC BN) for MK-19 HEDP ammunition. I wrote the justification letter and HQDA concured and a shooting my BN went. Forscom actualy "rush" delivered the ammunition to me! It was great!!! So now I know that I can request some of the more sexy stuff, thanks for the information.

3ID did it for their SDM's? I wonder what happened to that request?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

gr8fuldoug
SHOT Show Day 3
Replies
1
Views
448
Sblzrd65
S
F
2024 TENET Midnight Madness Night Run and Gun. My Journey to The Finish Line.
Replies
0
Views
104
FatBoy
F
gr8fuldoug
New Products Intel from Camera Land
Replies
2
Views
1K
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Optics Camera Land's Shot Show Preview & Sale
Replies
0
Views
405
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Camera Land's Shot Show Preview & Sale
Replies
0
Views
684
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
Top Bottom
Back