• 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!

XM-3 Rifle??

Re: XM-3 Rifle??

Why debate 1k when Chandler claims that the gun equaled a 300WM well beyond 1k?

"When being tested for safety and accuracy beyond 1000 yards, by Crane Naval Weapons Station, the XM3 out-shot all of the .308 (7.62 NATO) rifles, including those listed above, and at those extreme ranges, the XM3 rifles equaled the accuracy performance of the .300 Winchester Magnums being used as standard test weapons."
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: palma</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why debate 1k when Chandler claims that the gun equaled a 300WM well beyond 1k?

"When being tested for safety and accuracy beyond 1000 yards, by Crane Naval Weapons Station, the XM3 out-shot all of the .308 (7.62 NATO) rifles, including those listed above, and at those extreme ranges, the XM3 rifles equaled the accuracy performance of the .300 Winchester Magnums being used as standard test weapons." </div></div>

Isn't that some BS...
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

Palma you are correct on this part. (Chandler claims).
the XM3 rifles equaled the accuracy performance of the .300 Winchester Magnums being used at those extreme ranges.that is BS.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: palma</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why debate 1k when Chandler claims that the gun equaled a 300WM well beyond 1k?

"When being tested for safety and accuracy beyond 1000 yards, by Crane Naval Weapons Station, the XM3 out-shot all of the .308 (7.62 NATO) rifles, including those listed above, and at those extreme ranges, the XM3 rifles equaled the accuracy performance of the .300 Winchester Magnums being used as standard test weapons."</div></div>
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

<span style="color: #CC0000">I can not help not posting an oldie but a goody! </span>


Email from Norm Chandler to getula72 on 4/12/09:


I just re-read everything on this post. Now I'm a little irritated. I'm going to state the following, feel free to post it. Actually, I'd prefer that you would post it for me as I don't wish to go back and forth. I simply want to state my points and that's it. Let me know either way.

Iron Brigade Armory was started in 1977 but not incorporated until 1994. Since then, IBA has built or upgraded approximatley 2000 rifles. 25% of those are Chandler Snipers. Since there are only about 10 people making statements on this post, which leaves about 1990 others, it's apparent to me there are very few "Unhappy" people. Granted not everyone is a keyboard commando.

Life is tough these days with finances and overall hatred towards others. I'm dissapointed in some of the statements and erroneous claims I have read. However, I'm not surprised. The intent of IBA is to build the best rifle possible and make an honest living. So far we have been successful in both. For those that know us and have a dialogue, you understand. For those that don't know us, and judge us, shame on you.

The statement about the XM-3's being bought by the USMC is false. Those rifles were donated to the USMC at the agreement and ultimate direction of General Mattis (USMC) via DOD/DARPA. DARPA contracted IBA to build those rifles as a baseline to establish the future capability of sniper rifles and specific optics/lasers. 3 years ago, when the contract was complete, IBA delivered (54) .308 rifles to the USMC with suppressors and Night Vision units attached. Those are still the only 54 rifles the USMC has with both suppressors and night vision units, to my knowledge. It's unfortunate that every military sniper rifle does not have both of those capabilities "Across the board". It increases war time capability and although it's not measurable, it saves lives.

<span style="color: #3333FF">The statement about being able to buy 2 rifles for 1 Chandler Sniper, I challenge that person to do it, with optics, in the hard case and all collateral equipment. Then, if/when you bring me the two rifles, I would like to sling those two, and the CS I donate to the cause, across the Wal Mart parking lot. Then we'll shoot them back to 1000 yards to see if they work. Bring them on.</span>

I will close by saying that I do not intend to reply or respond to any further postings. If anyone wishes to speak to me or my Father we can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected]. I ask any of you to copy all email's to [email protected] as she aids in "All" daily operations.

Respectfully,

Norm Chandler III
IBA Vice President
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
facepalm2ly3.jpg
</div></div>

My thoughts exactly
laugh.gif
.

Dave P
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

Since many discussions of IBA relate to cost, I took the liberty of comparing online pricing from a comparably equipped M40A1 rifle from TBA, IBA, and GAP. Where options weren’t specified on the respective websites, assumptions are listed in parenthesis.

My intent isn’t to debate the XM-3 (which I agree is overpriced), but to demonstrate that similar rifles from each of these shops carry fairly similar prices.

TBA:
M40A1 Base – 2950
NF NXS 3.5-15x50 – 1550 (taken from Euro Optics website)
Rings – 0
Bipod – 110
Storm Case – 265
Clip Slot – 150
Sling – 55
Badger M4 Metal – 335
Total: $5,415

GAP:
M40A1 Base – 3400
NF NXS 3.5-15x50 – 1550 (taken from Euro Optics website)
Rings and Base – 200 (not included per website, price estimated)
Bipod – 110 (not included per website, price estimated)
Storm Case – 250 (not included per website, price estimated)
Clip Slot – 0
Sling – 50 (not mentioned on website as standard, price assumed)
Badger M4 Metal – 304
Total: $5,864

IBA:
M40A1 “Chandler Rifle” – 5590
NF NXS 3.5-15x50 – 450 (upgrade price per website)
Rings – 0
Bipod – 0
Storm Case – 0
Clip Slot – 0
Sling – 0
Badger M4 Metal – 0
Total: $6,440

From the above comparisons, the differences between the IBA rifle versus TBA and GAP are an additional 8.9% and 15.9% respectively. Whether or not this expense would be worthwhile to the buyer is up for debate, but anything within this range, in my opinion, would be a matter of personal preference.

If I’m wrong on any of these assumptions, I’d certainly welcome the clarification.
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

I had a chance to tour the facility a few months ago, while I have never shot one, I did like a few things on the XM3. I think they do a great job on the bedding and I really like the scope base system they use. It also seems that they have really good quality control, every rifle is inspected with a fine tooth comb before being boxed up.

On the other hand, if you want to compare rifle to rifle, I really dont see why they would be "above and beyond" other well built rifles.
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

its not above and beyond any other custom build, does it shoot, yes its pretty damn good in that category. Is it worth the money and time spent waiting? No, id rather have George or Jered build me one. IBA does nothing to the rifle other than piece it all together and bed it. The action and barrel work are outsourced to Hart. Dont get me wrong the accuracy of the rifle is that compared to other high end builders. Its all the bullshit that Norm tries to pull over peoples heads and sells them at a ridiculously high price.
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USMC Grunt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are a few units that are using but those units are far and very few between. Our unit had those on our last deployment. None of the snipers used them at all. The other guys in the platoon just shot it at the range and with not very good results. Too many things wrong with it. Im not going to get into detail with it right now. I would never take it out a mission. Nothing to me beats the M40a3 built by our gunsmiths. Nobody would trust anything else but the M40a3. </div></div>

Just curious were you in the sniper platoon. It sounds like you are giving advice that is not first hand knowledge. If you have carried that heavy pig of a rifle M40A3 then ignore what I am about to say. If not you should just state that this is your opinion. I carried a lot of rifles that were not made by the Marine Corps that I had more faith in than the M40A3.

My M40A1 that I carried was a lot nicer. When I was in we had both the A1's and A3's. The stock on the A3 is designed for bench rest shooting not lugging around all over God's green earth. Not to mention the ones we had were equipped with the stupid non pinned bolt release on the side of the action that if you manipulated the bolt a little to hard hit you in the face and then you had to look for that stupid release and spring.

I never carried the M40A3 whenever I had a choice and always took the A1 due to lighter weight and original bolt release in front of the trigger.

The XM3 platform is a good idea but I don't agree with pricing lack of detachable mag, adjustable cheekpiece and length of pull. The idea of a lighter idea is always great however.

Rant over.

Chuck
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chucky</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: USMC Grunt</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are a few units that are using but those units are far and very few between. Our unit had those on our last deployment. None of the snipers used them at all. The other guys in the platoon just shot it at the range and with not very good results. Too many things wrong with it. Im not going to get into detail with it right now. I would never take it out a mission. Nothing to me beats the M40a3 built by our gunsmiths. Nobody would trust anything else but the M40a3. </div></div>

Just curious were you in the sniper platoon. It sounds like you are giving advice that is not first hand knowledge. If you have carried that heavy pig of a rifle M40A3 then ignore what I am about to say. If not you should just state that this is your opinion. I carried a lot of rifles that were not made by the Marine Corps that I had more faith in than the M40A3.

My M40A1 that I carried was a lot nicer. When I was in we had both the A1's and A3's. The stock on the A3 is designed for bench rest shooting not lugging around all over God's green earth. Not to mention the ones we had were equipped with the stupid non pinned bolt release on the side of the action that if you manipulated the bolt a little to hard hit you in the face and then you had to look for that stupid release and spring.

I never carried the M40A3 whenever I had a choice and always took the A1 due to lighter weight and original bolt release in front of the trigger.

The XM3 platform is a good idea but I don't agree with pricing lack of detachable mag, adjustable cheekpiece and length of pull. The idea of a lighter idea is always great however.

Rant over.

Chuck </div></div>


Yes I was in a sniper platoon for the deployment and still in the platoon. Our platoon did have, I think 5 or 6 cant remember the exact number. It is my opinion, everyone has one. Im just stating what myself and the rest of the platoon thought of it. As you can see my opinions are different then other peoples who have decided to use it. We didnt like it so we didnt use it and vise versa with other units. Everyone has a rifle that they like and use whether made my the Marine Corps or not so that what they use.
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

Here's my OPINION on the XM-3. First of all, I personally love the idea of a lighter/shorter rifle. Ive humped the m40a3s all over the place, on missions and in training. It is big and bulky there is no secret to that. It does shoot great though, and any missions where I felt there was at least a slim possibility of taking a shot, I took it out, as I had complete confidence in the weapon system.

Now back to the XM-3. I love the fact that it is a lighter, more compact weapon, with a suppressor. There is no doubt that everyone on here can see the advantages of that. The XM 3 I shot was actually quite accurate, but we were only able to take it out to 100 yards. I cant comment on the performance past 100 yards, but it has been shown by Lowlight that shorter barrel rifles can still go the distance so I have no reason to believe that the XM 3 cant do the same. The lack of data on the gun past 100 yards was the reason I never took it out.

I will say this....some of the other XM 3s we had were not that great of shooters. I can say that at least 1 shot very shitty. I dont know the reason, just that it wouldnt hold a group.

I DO think that IBA is extremely overpriced. There really is no debate in that. But the idea of a short barreled lightweight rifle as the .308 rifle for the USMC makes sense to me. But do I think IBAs XM 3 is the answer, definitely not. The price is simply outrageous, when better guns based on the same "idea" and "principles" can be had for much less.
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rogers0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's my OPINION on the XM-3. First of all, I personally love the idea of a lighter/shorter rifle. Ive humped the m40a3s all over the place, on missions and in training. It is big and bulky there is no secret to that. It does shoot great though, and any missions where I felt there was at least a slim possibility of taking a shot, I took it out, as I had complete confidence in the weapon system.

Now back to the XM-3. I love the fact that it is a lighter, more compact weapon, with a suppressor. There is no doubt that everyone on here can see the advantages of that. The XM 3 I shot was actually quite accurate, but we were only able to take it out to 100 yards. I cant comment on the performance past 100 yards, but it has been shown by Lowlight that shorter barrel rifles can still go the distance so I have no reason to believe that the XM 3 cant do the same. The lack of data on the gun past 100 yards was the reason I never took it out.

I will say this....some of the other XM 3s we had were not that great of shooters. I can say that at least 1 shot very shitty. I dont know the reason, just that it wouldnt hold a group.

I DO think that IBA is extremely overpriced. There really is no debate in that. But the idea of a short barreled lightweight rifle as the .308 rifle for the USMC makes sense to me. But do I think IBAs XM 3 is the answer, definitely not. The price is simply outrageous, when better guns based on the same "idea" and "principles" can be had for much less. </div></div>

do you think the marine corp should keep the 24 inch barrel or go shorter based on your experiences?
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

based on mine i would say that the Marine Corps should have a 18-20 inch 308 for urban scenarios and then for the moutains of like Afghanistan i think that the Marine Corps should jump up to a 338 lapua or 300 WM. I love the M40A3 but it is a heavy bitch when you have a 90 lb ruck on
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, that's what the Army is doing. The Marine Corps is bringing up the rear, but that's not unusual...
laugh.gif

</div></div>

not unsual at all, we always get the shaft on equipment end of things, but somehow we always come out on top
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

Most of their expense is in their bedding job. For an IBA Bedding Job it costs 1000 buckys!!

"The $995.00 just includes the buildup of the barreled action in the McMillanStock."
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deadly0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">based on mine i would say that the Marine Corps should have a 18-20 inch 308 for urban scenarios and then for the moutains of like Afghanistan i think that the Marine Corps should jump up to a 338 lapua or 300 WM. I love the M40A3 but it is a heavy bitch when you have a 90 lb ruck on </div></div>

That pig is heavy when you don't have gear on.

Ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain.

Chuck
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: chucky</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deadly0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">based on mine i would say that the Marine Corps should have a 18-20 inch 308 for urban scenarios and then for the moutains of like Afghanistan i think that the Marine Corps should jump up to a 338 lapua or 300 WM. I love the M40A3 but it is a heavy bitch when you have a 90 lb ruck on </div></div>

That pig is heavy when you don't have gear on.

Ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain.

Chuck </div></div>


so true its not even funny
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

So is the Army also using this rifle?I saw an Army sniper in the Top Sniper Comp show that was using the XM3 to compete.Or could it be his personal rifle?
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

no the army is not using the XM3, IBA produced something like 60 XM3s for 2nd Mar Div. There are no others in service with the military
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: deadly0311</div><div class="ubbcode-body">no the army is not using the XM3, IBA produced something like 60 XM3s for 2nd Mar Div. There are no others in service with the military</div></div>
I wonder why the Army doggie had the XM3 in the Top Sniper show then?It was the Warrior Traning Center Team from the US army at Fort Benning that had it.
 
Re: XM-3 Rifle??

Out of curiosity, is anyone aware of the Marines fielding a rifle made by a civilian, or any external company prior ot the XM-3?
 
Super Thread Bump.

EDITed out bad info

My question is why would this highly vissible, non weapon centric entity ask for multiple example of what look to me, like a non important weapon system for display (A Navy entity no less). Did the Navy also get these or was it just the Marines?

With very limited space, I cannot see the need for these rifles when much more historicaly significant weaponry should be sourced and stored...

Any help would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
As Deadly posted above, you had about 60 units made for the USMC. They were used and are still being used as the USMC Is not gonna just toss something, they will use them until they die.

I never heard of anyone else using them.

There is a resurgence of shorter rifles being pushed, You have the Accuracy 1st guys pushing short 1-7 twist 308 rifles, so you are probably seeing people doing something with a short rifle because of this effort. They are promoting the sub-sonic capabilities and the ability by using an aggressive twist to extend the transonic range of these rifles.

So, you have an outside force pushing an focused internal effort to bring back the short 308 weapons system.
 
Sorry Frank there was some misinformation in my last post.

Turns out said entity was requesting directly from Marine Corp Collections. Collection manager says "why does a navy entity need these, much less this many?" We said, No idea why they are asking.

Any idea if any were pushed to the Navy, SWCC or SEAL teams?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
DARPA XM-3 A1-3 or A6
Replies
3
Views
584
kft101
K
N
308 Hybrid precision/hunting rifle barrel selection
Replies
3
Views
712
BuildingConceptsllc
BuildingConceptsllc
Alex Turner
M24 Barrel Question
Replies
6
Views
2K
AccuSol-ERN
A
Alex Turner
M24 Barrel question
Replies
2
Views
685
swampbuck
S
M
Need help deciding on a precision rifle
Replies
44
Views
2K
Thump_rrr
T
Top Bottom
Back