• 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!

New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD

Yes, Sinister has the info, and I just reread his posts. Question though. ? Where does it look like the .33 issue is headed? Is perhaps, the .33 seen as just not enough jump on an upgraded .300 WM , which would lead to speculation that another caliber has made an impact worth further study, and if so what might that caliber/ cartridge be?
Super Bee points out that the venerable .300 WM is a tried and true cartridge,but it just seems that something from the "open your beer with a can opener while puffing on a pall mall" era belt base is just a tad out of date... training notwithstanding.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Super Bee 950</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You guys keep putting a lot of faith on the majic bullet. If the troop cant hit the target, it doesnt matter what he shot.....</div></div>

No such thing as magic bullets, but ballistics are easily quantified.

Less drift and less drop never hurt the odds of a hit. More retained velocity/energy past 1000 yards is icing on the cake.

A 7mm pushing a 180 VLD at 3000 fps can do those things. Same barrel/bolt change as 300 WinMag.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Code:</div><div class="ubbcode-body ubbcode-pre" ><pre>

Bullet : .308, 220, Sierra HP MatchK 2240
Muzzle velocity : 2870 fps
Ballistic Coefficient(s) (G1): .618

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range Velo Time of Energy Path Deflection Total Sight correction Target
city flight to at crosswind drop for setting new lead
LOS of 10.0 Mph zero range 33 fps
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
·Yards fps s ft.lbs. in. in. MOA in. Clicks MOA yds ·
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 2870 0.0000 4023 -2.0 0.0 ----- 0.0 ------ ----- 0.00
X 100 2739 0.1073 3665 0.0 0.5 0.47 2.2 0.0 0.00 1.17
P 250 2550 0.2782 3176 -5.9 3.0 1.14 14.4 +6.6 +2.27 3.04
| 500 2252 0.5903 2476 -43.3 11.9 2.27 62.1 +24.1 +8.27 6.46
| 750 1973 0.9461 1902 -123.9 28.5 3.63 153.1 +45.8 +15.77 10.35
| 1000 1715 1.3541 1437 -260.9 54.4 5.19 300.5 +72.4 +24.91 14.81
| 1250 1479 1.8257 1069 -473.3 91.4 6.98 523.3 +105.1 +36.16 19.97
| 1500 1279 2.3718 799 -788.8 141.5 9.01 849.2 +146.0 +50.21 25.94
| 1750 1124 2.9985 617 -1242.8 205.8 11.23 1313.6 +197.1 +67.81 32.79
| 2000 1019 3.7011 508 -1874.0 283.4 13.53 1955.1 +260.0 +89.45 40.48</pre></div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Code:</div><div class="ubbcode-body ubbcode-pre" ><pre>

Bullet : .284, 180, JLK VLD
Muzzle velocity : 3000 fps
Ballistic Coefficient(s) (G1): C1= .738
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Range Velo Time of Energy Path Deflection Total Sight correction Target
city flight to at crosswind drop for setting new lead
LOS of 10.0 Mph zero range 33 fps
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
·Yards fps s ft.lbs. in. in. MOA in. Clicks MOA yds ·
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 0 3000 0.0000 3597 -2.0 0.0 ----- 0.0 ------ ----- 0.00
X 100 2887 0.1016 3330 0.0 0.3 0.26 2.0 0.0 0.00 1.11
| 250 2722 0.2625 2962 -5.0 2.2 0.84 12.9 +5.6 +1.92 2.87
P 263 2708 0.2770 2931 -5.9 2.5 0.89 14.3 +6.3 +2.16 3.03
| 500 2461 0.5526 2421 -37.5 9.3 1.77 55.2 +20.8 +7.17 6.04
| 750 2215 0.8733 1961 -105.9 21.7 2.76 133.4 +39.2 +13.48 9.55
| 1000 1983 1.2310 1572 -218.7 40.7 3.88 256.0 +60.7 +20.88 13.46
| 1250 1766 1.6306 1247 -386.6 67.0 5.12 433.8 +85.8 +29.53 17.83
| 1500 1568 2.0856 983 -628.7 103.1 6.56 685.7 +116.3 +40.02 22.81
| 1750 1390 2.5905 772 -956.4 147.9 8.07 1023.3 +151.7 +52.19 28.33
| 2000 1238 3.1634 613 -1404.4 204.8 9.78 1481.1 +194.9 +67.05 34.60</pre></div></div>
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

superbee,

I didn't use the numbers MontanaMarine did. Instead I used 2800 fps for both at sea level and 59 deg. @ 29.92" of Hg. At that speed the useable mach range for the .300 is 1325 yds. The useable mach range for the 180 Berger is 1450.

The point here is that the 'troop' now shooting some of the best rifle's we've ever gotten our hands on IS capable of hitting that far out. But, he's certainly never going to hit if he doesn't get the equipment matched to the ammunition to do so.

At this point we really could have taken a quantum leap. Instead we hopped a mudpuddle.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

I just thought of another aspect of this. Since the contract is this large, I'm imagining (and I read it on this post) that the regular Army sniper assets will be turning in M24's to have them modified to take the new round. Meaning Army wide, precision shooters of all types are going to this.

One of the things I was grateful for when I purchased an Armalite AR-30 in .300 WM was that it came with an outstanding muzzle brake. Most of our sniper schools are pretty conscientious to teach recoil management. However, I do know of several individuals who by proxy were given the rifle and a short course and told they were now 'the sniper' for that unit. Being that this has a bunch more recoil than the 7.62x51, are there any provisions for muzzle brakes/recoil dampeners when the rifles come back modified? Or are they going to be more stringent about teaching recoil management to non-sniper course qualified soldiers?

The reason I say that is because I can see a number of soldiers coming back with recoil induced flinching/injuries, much like the .50's after GW-I. They had brakes but they kick like mules. Without brakes .300's kick pretty damn hard. What's the thought on that...or should it be another thread?
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

Well done Montana. That is what I am working with now, the 7mm 180 VLD
in front of the rsaum case. Not to change the subject of the thread. Enquiring minds want to know.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New scope (higher/variable magnification);
folding stock;
rails for night sighting and fighting gear;
<span style="font-weight: bold">muzzle brake and suppressor</span>.</div></div>
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">New scope (higher/variable magnification);
folding stock;
rails for night sighting and fighting gear;
<span style="font-weight: bold">muzzle brake and suppressor</span>.</div></div></div></div>

Thank you, I missed that.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

Let me answer a few of the topics brought up in this thread..

Rifle calibers are limited to whats been adopted by our US Military and meet NATO military specifications. That includes 9mm, 45 ACP, 223, 308, 30-06, 300 Win Mag, 338 LM, 50 BMG.. The 30-06 is retired, and the 338 LM has not been adopted yet. That rules out the US Military from using other cartridges. Adoping a new cartridge or weapons platform is a major expense, and a logistical nightmare.

Bullets.. Only FMJ`ed bullets are legal to use by the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention IV of 1907, Article 23(E), and the rules of war. It took some doing to get the Sierra Match King approved and legal for war time use. So that rules out other manufacture brands of bullets. Other bullet manufactures brought up dont have the manufacturing capacity for 38.4 million rounds, even if there bullets were approved. JLK is a one man, hand press operation, LOL.

We are talking about 38.4 million rounds. Federal owns Lake City Arsenal. Lake City produces ammo for the US Military.

http://www.thegunzone.com/opentip-ammo.html

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

The Laws of War http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So that rules out other manufacture brands of bullets. Other bullet manufactures brought up dont have the manufacturing capacity for 38.4 million rounds, even if there bullets were approved.</div></div>
Not true.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Federal owns Lake City Arsenal.</div></div>
Not true. Lake City Army Ammunition Plant is owned by the US Army. It is a Government Owned - Contractor Operated (GO-CO) operation. ATK just won another continuity contract.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

JLK is a small operation, true. You can't convince me though that a bigger operation couldn't spool up production of a better bullet.

I got a hunch that sometimes choices are already made before R&D even begins. The R&D becomes a formality, tailored to make the already chosen item look like the best option.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

Montana Marine.. i understand what your saying..

Another thing to consider with going to a VLD bullet is.. The OAL of the cartridge has to fit the magazine length of the rifles used by our US Military. The VLD bullet has to shoot accurately out of chambering and throats used. I understand thats why they did not choose the SMK 210 gr which has a higher BC, and is of a more of a VLD design. It wasnt shooting as accurately as the SMK 220.

The Military doesnt have the options we civilians enjoy. They have to standardize everything. New ammo designs needs to fit, function, and shoot accurately out of the thousands of rifles out in the field.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TomS308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Another thing to consider with going to a VLD bullet is.. The OAL of the cartridge has to fit the magazine length of the rifles used by our US Military. The VLD bullet has to shoot accurately out of chambering and throats used. I understand thats why they did not choose the SMK 210 gr which has a higher BC, and is of a more of a VLD design. It wasnt shooting as accurately as the SMK 220.

The Military doesnt have the options we civilians enjoy. They have to standardize everything. New ammo designs needs to fit, function, and shoot accurately out of the thousands of rifles out in the field. </div></div>
My point exactly. The 220 SMK fits the bill for an across the board use in numerous rifles. Getting a VLD bullet to shoot across all the thousands of rifles would be impossible.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

BTW; are we talking about re-barreling a short action for a round that requires a long action?
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

No, the M-24 is built on a Remington Long Action.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TomS308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me answer a few of the topics brought up in this thread..

Rifle calibers are limited to whats been adopted by our US Military and meet NATO military specifications. That includes 9mm, 45 ACP, 223, 308, 30-06, 300 Win Mag, 338 LM, 50 BMG.. The 30-06 is retired, and the 338 LM has not been adopted yet. That rules out the US Military from using other cartridges. Adoping a new cartridge or weapons platform is a major expense, and a logistical nightmare.

Bullets.. Only FMJ`ed bullets are legal to use by the Geneva Convention, the Hague Convention IV of 1907, Article 23(E), and the rules of war. It took some doing to get the Sierra Match King approved and legal for war time use. So that rules out other manufacture brands of bullets. Other bullet manufactures brought up dont have the manufacturing capacity for 38.4 million rounds, even if there bullets were approved. <span style="font-weight: bold">JLK is a one man, hand press operation, LOL</span>.

We are talking about 38.4 million rounds. Federal owns Lake City Arsenal. Lake City produces ammo for the US Military.

http://www.thegunzone.com/opentip-ammo.html

http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html

The Laws of War http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/lawwar.asp</div></div>

First of all the Hague convention doesn't specify a FMJ bullet. It says a bullet not intended to expand or not cause undue wounding. We chose the FMJ route. The hollow point was approved on our side because of it's flight characteristics, not because it was intended to cause undue wounding. So we use it for long range precision fire.

Second, JLK may be a one man operation, but when Vought couldn't produce Corsairs fast enough they farmed out to Goodyear. Colt couldn't produce the M-16 (that they pretty much stole the rights to) so GM and other smaller manufacturers built them. The LD/VLD/ULD bullet design is there. It can be built in mass. I'm tired of hearing it costs too much when they just approved 136 billion to develop a second engine for the F-35/F-36 fighter. M1 Garands got built by a number of manufacturers. P-51 engines were even built by such unusual companies like Maytag. There is no reason the design can't be purchased and used. And a royalty be paid for x number of items produced.

And third, Already addressed. Just because Federal and Sierra are big doesn't mean they should automatically get the contract.

Edit:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TomS308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Montana Marine.. i understand what your saying..

Another thing to consider with going to a VLD bullet is.. The OAL of the cartridge has to fit the magazine length of the rifles used by our US Military. The VLD bullet has to shoot accurately out of chambering and throats used. I understand thats why they did not choose the SMK 210 gr which has a higher BC, and is of a more of a VLD design. It wasnt shooting as accurately as the SMK 220.

The Military doesnt have the options we civilians enjoy. They have to standardize everything. New ammo designs needs to fit, function, and shoot accurately out of the thousands of rifles out in the field.</div></div>

The 210 was dropped because it wouldn't stabilize past supersonic range.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

Not to throw sand around, but Federal is owned by ATK, and ATK runs Lake City. ATK actually owns alot of things involving the firearm industry including RCBS, but they don't own Sierra...yet. Maybe that is why Federal got the contract.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MontanaMarine</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I got a hunch that sometimes choices are already made before R&D even begins. The R&D becomes a formality, tailored to make the already chosen item look like the best option. </div></div>

I concur. They'd have to be stupid to choose .300WM when they have the world at their disposal.

30+ years ago, they made the M24 a long action so it could have .300WM capability if the time ever came.

Fast forward to today, and we have short action cartridges with the performance of .300WM and long action cartridges that make 300WM all but obsolete.

If the military adopted 7mm WSM or some such caliber tomorrow, it'd be cheap as hell just like .308 is today. And if they had any sense, they'd pick something with far better ballistics instead of marrying themselves to a 30 caliber cartridge just because that's how it used to be.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">30+ years ago, they made the M24 a long action so it could have .300WM capability if the time ever came.</div></div>

SOCOM units have been shooting the 300 since the 80s. Leg Army has made no effort to improve capability.

The 210-grain load was adopted for an in-system weapon to keep those guns running until the 338 is adopted -- no vaporware or hobby gun in grocery store magazine caliber flavor of the month. It is a gun system that is killing Hajjis today.

6, 6.5, and 7mm bullets may not meet real-world performance measures meant to break things and kill people.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TomS308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">SANDRAT.. Not trying to be rude.. but this thread is about the US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1 cartridge. Other cartridges belong in a different thread. Please stay on topic. </div></div>

Been two days now,this thread still on topic to your liking?

I think that all of us on SH are looking to expand our long distance capability,with good terminal performance/killing power at the end.I follow more on sinisters take,what good is a round that does nothing but shoot paper?
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">30+ years ago, they made the M24 a long action so it could have .300WM capability if the time ever came.</div></div>

SOCOM units have been shooting the 300 since the 80s. Leg Army has made no effort to improve capability.

The 210-grain load was adopted for an in-system weapon to keep those guns running until the 338 is adopted -- no vaporware or hobby gun in grocery store magazine caliber flavor of the month. It is a gun system that is killing Hajjis today.

6, 6.5, and 7mm bullets may not meet real-world performance measures meant to break things and kill people.</div></div>

I might question the 6mm's ability to provide high energy along with killing power {edit: at long ranges, because I know it kills well at up to 500 yds.} but I certainly won't sell either the 6.5 or the 7mm short. They keep moving faster than .30 cal bullets.

Edit:

In fact that statement got me to thinking. Why are the 6mm, 6.5 and 7mm no good when the 77 gr. Sierra out of the 5.56 out to 1k is perfectly doable...with only 186 ft. lbs of energy remaining?

Like I, and many others, have said here and other posts. Why go to the new bullet in the .300 WM when you could have a lot better performance from a more efficient bullet/case combination. we don't need a stopgap, we need a solution.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

Benchresting and NRA long range prone competition is not military sniping. Different requirements.

US line infantry snipers may not be sniper qualified. Those that are are normally promoted out of a job or they separate from service after a few years on the job.

Special Operations snipers are normally more senior in rank but not full-time shooters (on duty or off). Most will only maintain minimal sustainment requirements. The majority of mission requirements are met by a 7.62, 300 Win Mag, or 338 Lapua.

There are tens if not hundreds of rifle rounds that fly hot, straight, and true to 1,000 yards. There are very few that have been adopted for sniper use.

The US Army runs ten to twenty years behind many European nations in sniper technology. Countries like Switzerland, Germany, Norway, and Finland have a strong culture of highpower marksmanship competition experience that blends over into their reserve and active forces.

The 77-grain 5.56 was never intended to be a dedicated sniper cartridge. Marines who compete at 800, 900, and 1,000 yards with the 77 have often been disappointed when outperformed by other teams shooting single-fed 80s. Forces who try using the 77 at 1,000 yards in combat are going to be disappointed or wasting opportunity.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Benchresting and NRA long range prone competition is not military sniping. Different requirements.

US line infantry snipers may not be sniper qualified. Those that are are normally promoted out of a job or they separate from service after a few years on the job.

Special Operations snipers are normally more senior in rank but not full-time shooters (on duty or off). Most will only maintain minimal sustainment requirements. The majority of mission requirements are met by a 7.62, 300 Win Mag, or 338 Lapua.

There are tens if not hundreds of rifle rounds that fly hot, straight, and true to 1,000 yards. There are very few that have been adopted for sniper use.

The US Army runs ten to twenty years behind many European nations in sniper technology. Countries like Switzerland, Germany, Norway, and Finland have a strong culture of highpower marksmanship competition experience that blends over into their reserve and active forces.

The 77-grain 5.56 was never intended to be a dedicated sniper cartridge. Marines who compete at 800, 900, and 1,000 yards with the 77 have often been disappointed when outperformed by other teams shooting single-fed 80s. Forces who try using the 77 at 1,000 yards in combat are going to be disappointed or wasting opportunity. </div></div>
I tend to agree with sinister,you can hit your target,but what the hell if it does not kill anything?
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

The 77 gr Sierra was not bought out for long range shooting. It was brought out to make the short barreled M4 carbine more lethal. The 556 with lighter bullets was just punching holes in the enemy and not stopping them after multible hits. Bullets did not thumble from the lower velocities from the M4. The 77 gr showed it would start thumbling within the body, and proved to be a much better stopper. There`s plenty of info about this on the web.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TomS308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 77 gr Sierra was not bought out for long range shooting. It was brought out to make the short barreled M4 carbine more lethal. The 556 with lighter bullets was just punching holes in the enemy and not stopping them after multible hits. Bullets did not thumble from the lower velocities from the M4. The 77 gr showed it would start thumbling within the body, and proved to be a much better stopper. There`s plenty of info about this on the web. </div></div>

Incorrect.

The first time I shot military-issued 77s was at the Atlantic Fleet and All-Navy Rifle Championships at Dam Neck, Virginia in 1999.

Right after 9/11, 5th Special Forces Group backed a truck up to the dock of the United States Army Marksmanship Unit's ammo warehouse and drove back to Fort Campbell, Kentucky with USAMU Black Hills contract ammo to go to war. Original intent was to shoot it through Special Purpose Rifles. It was competition ammo later adopted for combat and assigned a DOD Ammunition Code number.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

Sinister,

Bullshit yourself, The first time I heard of 77 gr. ammo being used was two friends of mine, former 1st RGR Bat guys went on to become D-boys. They were both in that story of how a team came over a hill, out scud hunting, in a dune buggy and came down the hill face to face with an Iraqi Infantry Battalion looking for them. The difference I am told is that that all had the same Mark something, Mod whatever that made it 77 gr. Sierra bullets. I don't know why the Army uses Navy nomenclature except that like this situation they may just be too cheap or undecided to make the right decision. Three dedicated snipers in the group. They laid down a cover fire and escaped with their butts barely intact. But they left 165 dead. That round was not a paper puncher first it was a range extender for the M16A4/M4 rifle. I don't know which version you may have heard but I got it straight from two of them, Tom W. & Ed R.(giving last names not prudent).

So if you consider that that round has in increased impact on the battlefield why wouldn't several rounds of calibers in between that and .308 do better? Especially when they prove they can kill at extended ranges. I'm tired of hearing this crap that the 7mm and 6.5 are paper punchers. Go back in history and look up just how far the Spanish started killing us with the 7mm in 1898. 2000 meters when they began firing ...and hitting. The Swedes have used the 6.5x55 to kill moose at pretty good ranges for over a century as well. they been shooting 1000m with that rifle since it's inception. It isn't exactly rocket science. It's bullet science. And those rounds will kill very well.

So don't sit there and tell me they can't kill. Because THAT is the bullshit I've listened to for damn near thirty years.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

Hey dude..Sinister aint a fucking ringknocking politician or a civie contractor trying to sell shit to the military..might be a good idea to check yourself..
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

6.5 x 284, 7mm WSM, 300 WSM, 300 RSAUM all do wonderful things. <span style="font-weight: bold">Some eat barrels at rates that a line infantry battalion arms room would never be able to keep pace with.</span>

Internet history isn't fact. Second-hand facts are exactly that. Certain USASOC units use heavy 5.56 that ISN'T 77-grain.






 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
6, 6.5, and 7mm bullets may not meet real-world performance measures meant to break things and kill people. </div></div>

If a 7mm hole won't kill you, a .30 won't either. .30 cal has no advantages other than historical ones in the U.S. arsenal. Anyone who can observe ballistic coefficients can clearly tell you that.

I won't claim to be an expert on ballistics, but I know for a fact that 7mm flyies flatter and for longer than .30 caliber with a similar powder charge. The military is selling itself short trying to defend the choice of a .30 caliber cartridge to kill a beast that a .22 caliber does just nicely at medium range.

If they want lethality, they're going to need shot placement more than a magic bullet at distance anyway. 6/6.5/7mm deliver this where .30 cannot.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

Body armor and helmets. Vision blocks. Glass. Electronics and antennae. Sheet metal.

Infantry is where they are now because they haven't specified any shortfalls. USASOC has targets they want killed and their own money and purchasing mechanisms (by law), ergo specification and solicitation of other items.

Infantry was (and still is) a Johnny-come-lately. It doesn't help when their requirements to the developers are written by one of the developers' civilian contractors with no background.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Body armor and helmets. Vision blocks. Glass. Electronics and antennae. Sheet metal.

Infantry is where they are now because they haven't specified any shortfalls. USASOC has targets they want killed and their own money and purchasing mechanisms (by law), ergo specification and solicitation of other items.

Infantry was (and still is) a Johnny-come-lately. <span style="font-weight: bold">It doesn't help when their requirements to the developers are written by one of the developers' civilian contractors with no background.</span> </div></div>

I will go with you %100 on that. I apologize too if my post was caustic. The story I heard was first hand from Ed. Tom was on that mission as well. They were using 77 gr. Sierra bullets loaded in 5.56. FWIW, Ed says what we got now kills just fine.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Downzero</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sinister</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
6, 6.5, and 7mm bullets may not meet real-world performance measures meant to break things and kill people. </div></div>

If a 7mm hole won't kill you, a .30 won't either. .30 cal has no advantages other than historical ones in the U.S. arsenal. Anyone who can observe ballistic coefficients can clearly tell you that.

I won't claim to be an expert on ballistics, but I know for a fact that 7mm flyies flatter and for longer than .30 caliber with a similar powder charge. The military is selling itself short trying to defend the choice of a .30 caliber cartridge to kill a beast that a .22 caliber does just nicely at medium range.

If they want lethality, they're going to need shot placement more than a magic bullet at distance anyway. 6/6.5/7mm deliver this where .30 cannot. </div></div>

Interesting fact is the German Bundeswehr snipers use the G22 SWS with a 300WM..and a interesting bullet of I believe 250grains..Its far from being a flat shooting round but they are extremely proficient in alpine wafare sniping and they must be shooting that oddball round for a reason because I think they are far far from being behind the curve.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1


7mm is the sexiest bullet in the "normal range"- that is calling the .338 and larger "exotics."

I feel the military would have the best ""practical"" ballistic round in a 7mm Mag or other 7mm "big boomer.". But having said that I'm glad they have given the guys more firepower. It's long overdue if you ask me. .300 WM is NOT shabby.....
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

Quote:
"If the military adopted 7mm WSM or some such caliber tomorrow, it'd be cheap as hell..."
WTF!!?? There is no way adopting a new caliber is going to be cheap. And distributing that package around the globe?
Aint gonna happen without alota fagina basspain and that's time the US mil doesnt have or need.
The 300 is fulfilling a 'stopgap' requirement, on the ground, here and now. Cheap, easy, effective. Even beancounters understand that.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

I'm not so sure 38.4 million rounds of the new 300 WinMag will be any less costly than 38.4 million rounds of 7mm Rem Mag would be. I don't see where the cost difference would be for barrel swap, and boltface mod either.

Distribution/fielding seems to me like it will be about the same either way too.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

One last thought and I'm done.

Regarding the VLD going wonky in the transonic region. Maybe so, maybe not. I have tossed 208s out past 1800 yards in my 308 and they flew stable.

Anyway, my relevant point is this. Figuring roughly 1200 fps as entering thec transonic region:

.308" 220 SMK 2870 fps: hits 1211 fps at <span style="font-weight: bold">1600</span> yards (local atmo, 4500 ft el.)
.284" 180 JLK 3000 fps: Hits 1230 fps at <span style="font-weight: bold">2000</span> yards.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

The 300s are essentially already in the inventory and downrange doing good deeds.
Just getting da boys ammo is easier than sending tons of guns back and forth. What do shooters do in the meantime? For some, not much unless they can even get their hands on a 110...or a M14...
Too many units don't have the precision rifles they need as it is, or are working those issues. Adding to the pile is not the way to go, IMO.
Hey, just getting any 300 ammo, any 300 of whatever DODAC is good enough for some guys. I always seem to be short!
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">$49.9M US Contract for 300 Winchester Magnum Ammo

10-Jun-2009 14:54 EDT

Related Stories: Americas - USA, Ammunition, Contracts - Awards, Guns - Personal Weapons, Other Corporation

Mk13 Mod5
MK13 Mod 5

ATK subsidiary Federal Cartridge Co. in Anoka, MN received a $49.9 million <span style="font-weight: bold">firm-fixed-price, indefinite-delivery/ indefinite-quantity </span>contract for .300 Winchester Magnum ammunition. Maximum quantity is 80,100 boxes of 480 rounds each, minimum is 117 boxes. This ammunition will be used by U.S. forces engaged in combat, and by the US Navy in Match Team competition.

300 Winchester offers longer range, better accuracy, and more hitting power than standard NATO 7.62×51 mm rounds. The MK248 MOD 1 cartridge grew out of the .300 Winchester Magnum Product Improvement Program…

ORD_M24_All_Parts.jpg
M24 sniper system


The .300 Win Mag Product Improvement Program aimed to improve the cartridge’s range from <span style="font-weight: bold">1,200 yards to 1,500 yards</span>, decrease the effects of wind on bullets in flight, and offer a reduced flash propellant that remained stable at temperatures from -25F to 165F.

The .300 Win Mag cartridge is already in wide production for competition use. As one might expect, Winchester 300 Magnum ammunition is equally popular with law enforcement specialty teams, and sport hunters like it, too. That popularity helps .300 Win Mag rounds offer considerable cost savings over the larger .338 Lapua round favored by other sniper systems like Britain’s L115A3. The other advantage is that the MK248 MOD 1 <span style="font-weight: bold">can be fired by snipers in the field armed with existing rifles</span>.

D.E. Watters of The Gun Zone adds that .300 Win Mag is used in the Mk13 sniper rifle, another Remington 700 long receiver derivative that’s assembled from parts at NSWC Crane. The most recent version is the Mk13 MOD 5, which allows the use of the same sound suppressor as the Knight’s Armament Company SR-25/MK11 sniper rifle.

Meanwhile, there is movement within the Army to modify their Remington 700 derived M24 sniper system to .300 Win Mag, starting with individual units. Some Special Forces units have already made this conversion. The concept of wider .300 Win Mag conversions is now being explored by Picatinny Arsenal.

Work on this order will be performed in Anoka, MN, and will run until June 2014. Contract funds in the amount of $1.3 million will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. <span style="font-weight: bold">This contract was competitively procured with multiple proposals solicited via the Federal Business Opportunities website</span>. One offer was received by The Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division in Crane, IN (N0016409-D-JQ56). See also FBO solicitation.</div></div>

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/USA-Orders-499M-in-300-Winchester-Magnum-Ammo-05493/
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TomS308</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The 77 gr Sierra was not bought out for long range shooting. It was brought out to make the short barreled M4 carbine more lethal. The 556 with lighter bullets was just punching holes in the enemy and not stopping them after multible hits. Bullets did not thumble from the lower velocities from the M4. The 77 gr showed it would start thumbling within the body, and proved to be a much better stopper. There`s plenty of info about this on the web. </div></div>

Read your history on the M16,the only reason bullets tumbled was the 1:12 twist,shitty powder also made them unreliable,the 77gr bullet is also a bit larger than the 55gr that was the standard for years,you never did answer my question about going off topic?
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

I doubt the reference was about the M16/A1. Perhaps talkin about the M4 vs M16A2 using M855 62 grain green tip ammo.
Green tip has had issues with just punchin ice pick holes at times in the M4.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

Guys, first off I'm glad that FINALLY some of what the military uses is being brought up to say a decade or two behind most of the stuff guys on here use. It is definitely a step forward. Albeit a small one. What follows is a bit of a rant, but perhaps will shed a bit of light on the past, as well as the current state of affairs with regards to weapons, acquisition programs, & marksmanship.

The money argument about changing X, Y, or Z, don't fly with me particularly with regard to buying or rebuilding rifles, & their subsequent logistics, etc. I don't know the numbers, but what does a new bomber cost nowadays? Likely every AR in the US Military inventory could be replaced for less than the cost of one uber tech aircraft, literally.

As to the .30 cal thing, again it goes back to bean counters, & one or two loud mouthed generals. It's been known scientifically for over a century that a 6.5mm or 7mm bullet put into the same case as anything that's a .30 cal is more efficent, effective, lighter... The Garand in it's original form was in .276 cal & the enbloc clips held 10 rounds. However, the bean counters & some generals forced the change to .30 cal. The story's out there, it aint nothing new. Not to mention that the Brits wanted something akin to the .276, but we forced the .308 on to NATO. Perhaps not the wisest move.
And I'm no legal historian, but I don't think we signed the Hague convention. And right after WW II we & several other nations signed statutes which forefitted any right & ability to declare war if I'm recalling correctly. Not to mention that some of our standard issue ammo is purposely designed to fragment. You know, that green tipped stuff.

I'm not a ballistician, but I don't quite understand all the fretting about the trans sonic thing. If G. David Tubb could hit a swinging 16" plate from 1600yds with a .308 offhand... And in the Civil War, Confederate sharpshooters were whacking guys at 1000yds with black powder Whitworth target rifles, regularly.
I'm sure that bullet design does play a factor, but training's a much bigger one.
In WW I in the battle around Bella Wood I think, Germans were writing letters home complainging that the Marines were picking them off like gophers in a dog town at 700yds. With stock Springfields, & obviously not match ammo. Marksmanship's been on a decline since then. As to the veracity of the Bella Wood story, if one digs, it's on YouTube.

The military's been fielding multiple cartridges in any & every conflict since WW I. Look at how many different ones were carried in WW II, Korea, Vietnam... even now, & of late, "unoffically" the .45's making a comeback, & is a popular item from what I understand.
Bottom line is, if a few folks in the decision making pool have enough nad & horsepower, they can get dang near anything & everything done.

How many MONTHS did it take us at the start of WW II to convert All of our manufacturing capability to producing things to support defeating the Germans & the Japanese. Only a couple, literally. Such would be unheard of today, & is, although it is possible to do similar things.
Anytime someone says, okay we'll form a committee & get this done, the project just went into an "flat spin", headed out to sea. DOA

PS: Heavy .223 slugs like the 77gr have been around & used since Vietnam by various units. The concept isn't exactly a new one, just an old fix to an old problem.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

I dont see anyone stating other calibers are bad and the 300 is the Holy Grail.
What makes sense in the middle of war? Using a platform that is already on the ground. We gots lots & lots of 300s, long action 700s here and there just waitin for a quick switch...
Yes, a single F22 can pay for a complete 7mm refit but getting money switched for small arms is not likely to happen in our reality. Small arms procurrement is small scale oftentimes and does not turn lobbyists and senators heads.
Logistical chains tend to work on geologic timie scales and a turning in weapons for refit and spinning up new scope cams, etc doesnt make anyone happy when they dont have a rifle in hand to train, deploy or actually use. This wouldnt be done all at once anyway, it would be done in increments like its always been done. What would we have, bits and pieces of 7mm rifles here and there while other units with other legacy guns. And that leaves, say 300WM rifles, still in use needing some ammo...and eventually this turns into an academic study that suddenly ends up looking up a good idea to just buy some new ammo and use existing rifles!
Criticism of switching the Garand to 30cal had its advantages. Huge stockpiles of ammo. Germany did the same thing when they had a chance to make the leap to an intermediate cartridge. What might have been but it wasnt like they made decisions blindly.
BTW, the 45 is official in some areas. It never seemed to really go away for that matter so I dont know if it qualifies as a "comeback."
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

I can't help but recall all the BS & gyrations which had to be tolerated just to get the M-24 approved. The part that sticks most in my mind is when a senior member present at one of the decision making conferences reached his boiling point, began ranting about how anyone could buy essentially an M-24 or even something better off of the shelf at a gun shop, & then threw a Pelican case containing one of the prototypes across the room.

Must have been some thick skulls in on the adoption committee for that rifle, given that it's equivalent was on the shelves of most gun shops across the country. And I still can't figure out why said system costs the Army WAY more than were I to pick one up. Even including what needs to be in a deployment kit. Truly loco!

And yeah, I know it's a bit simplistic to compare the cost of swapping out weapons platforms for guys with boots on the ground to that of aircraft, tanks, or ships. But at times reality bites. One part of which is that for some inane reason, those from O-6 on up & politicians are in permanent denial of the fact that in any sort of conflict, the bottom line IS boots on the ground. And they also conveniently forget the importance of proper training, in marksmanship & many other soldiering skills as well.

Sorry to digress from the theme of this thread. When I see supposed "leaders" with permanent cranial rectal inversions running around making dumb decisions, I get a touch wound at times.

Bottom line though, I'd be real glad to see our troops in all the services fitted out with better rifles, & especially with the proper training on how to use & employ them. Including LARGE ammo budgets, the appropriate accessories to go with the weapons, & good instructors.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

A lot to digest in this thread. Bottom line... If this is what we got... we gotta use it well.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

Last thing I'll say on this is maybe my take on this is wrong. SOC people will use the best they can get their hands on. This contract is pretty much precision shooters Military wide. This is certainly a jump in the right direction even if there could have been better. Better, though, would have to...as many have said...have a whole lot more training to make it that. The amount of improvement the Military expects from all levels is a jump. But not expecting all precision shooters to become top level precision shooters. The range this gives will enhance that. Once a shooter reaches top level it is then possible he may be recruited by one of the SOC units and at that time more and better firepower will be placed in his hands.

Although I feel there were better options, especially at a time like this, it's just not to be. Someone quoted this I believe, as "7.62 head" ?? Anyhow, it's the solution we get.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SANDRAT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Read your history on the M16,the only reason bullets tumbled was the 1:12 twist,shitty powder also made them unreliable,the 77gr bullet is also a bit larger than the 55gr that was the standard for years,you never did answer my question about going off topic? </div></div>

The first M16s were 1 in 14, not 1 in 12. 1 in 12 was the fix to that problem. They weren't switched to 1 in 7 until the A2 came out, many years later.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

If I may add to this I will.My thinking is this.they will use the 5R rifeling and a 1:10 twist.The reason I say this Is because Remington chambered this year in the 5r a 223 and 300wm.I have both the 223 and 308 and they shoot very well.and with very little work.I just got a 300wm in a sps but you can bet that when my funds get better I'll have one in a 300wm.and with the info given on this post I want have to do much home work.
I agree with the gent that said it's a wiser choice to us the smk.but to add one for the other gent.when I get my 5r in a 300wm I'll load some other type bullets,just to see what may or may not shoot better.all so to add.there was a gent on here that had a 300wm in a 5r and he said it shot the 208g a-max with h1000 very good.it just needed a muzzel brake so that one could shoot it more times in a day or match.I'll give Uncle Sam a big pat on the back for the improvement._________ our guys need this.They have been asking for more and it's time they get it.
Think that I will add one more thing but on the same wave link.I love my 223 but lets face it, it has very little of a punch when shot out past 200.and ever since our guys have been over there they have been crying for sam to give them the old m14 back.I think some have been sent to them.so why not give the sniper the same.I mean why not give our snipers alittle more in the really punch his lights out rifel.________ they don't fight fare.so when Uncle Sam is willing to give us a better round lets pat the _______ on the back.This is a biggy for me.When the ________ hasn't done much for them,but to watch them die._________lets face it we are in another Viet Nam war.Just like the bumper sticker I read the other day.This is what it said,What's another name for Irac'y Freedom { Viet Nam } sorry for going out of the box just alittle pissed off at Sam.I think our guys need to be home to watch over our land and not some one else's.I am sorry if I have made some one mad.just needed to vent alittle.but I hope we will send some of those 220g smk's where they are well needed.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: AZ EMS Pilot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No offense, but maybe you should take this class before you post again...</div></div>Or at least read the thread, then post.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 5R milspec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">who cares graham cracker</div></div>Apparently you do:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 5R milspec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">sorry to you 2 for not haveing the education of you type.just gave my 2 cents.I should be a friend and not someone to pick on.this isn't your first time replying on my post or reply.same smart ___ reply on this one to.just ignore the way I post or reply and read what I am saying.I am just another fellow shotter.so lets be friends and get along. </div></div>Don't be a Troll. No one else here benefits from your drama.
 
Re: New US Military .300 Win Mag Match MK 248 MOD 1

I was able to read and undrstand it just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Firearms SOLD- LRI 300 Win Mag Mk 248 Barreled Action
Replies
10
Views
2K
raidergrad
R
T
AWC M94 .300 WIN MAG
Replies
7
Views
1K
deersniper
deersniper
W
300 Win mag load info: MK248 mod 1, 220 gr OTM
Replies
3
Views
4K
RHunter
R
M
300 WM, RE-22 and 210 SMK for 1000 yards
Replies
8
Views
2K
doc76251
doc76251
sinister
Army Awards M24 300 Win Mag Upgrade Contract
Replies
46
Views
11K
pre64marksman
P
Top Bottom
Back