.338 Lapua over .300 WM?

[m1a convert]

I have trying to figure out what caliber to build a 1500 plus rifle in. In looking at the drop tables from Later's site it looks like the .338 Lapua table only has 40 inches less drop at 2K when compared to a .300 win mag.

Am I missing something? Are those two rounds really that close in performance? If so, why do a Lapua?

Thanks

 

[260shtr]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

The big boys at the pool hall say the Navy has gone to a long throated 300 Win Mag shooting 220 gr Matchkings at 2860 something. The ballistics out to 1500 are really close.

 

[Louis Corkern]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

M1A,

1. Is the 300WM even with the 210gr hot loads goes subsonic at about 1700yd.
2. Is the 338LM with normal loads goes subsonic at about 1900yd.
3. The elevation/drop is the easiest aspect of shooting so you judging rounds on wrong criteria IMO. The windage is better in the LM as is the Ke.
4. Also need to note the COAL of my 300WM rifle is 3.7"

If you are looking for a +1500yd the LM is just easier. Looking for an up to 1500yd then the WM does that fine and cheaper than LM.

Thanks

 

[Crazy Dog ll]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Try Rebirth of the 300WM.com Shooting 240 grains bullets and long throated comes real close to the 338LM.

 

[steve123]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

My 30-375R holds 2 grains more powder than a 300WM.I built it to shoot 30 cal 240SMK's,BC of .711.It'll go 2880fps and has very light recoil with the muzzle brake.My point was an economical extreme range cartridge.

So it might be real close to a 250gr 338L factory load.But not Fredo's reloads,LOL.

Steve

 

[Emilio]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 260 shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The big boys at the pool hall say the Navy has gone to a long throated 300 Win Mag shooting 220 gr Matchkings at 2860 something. The ballistics out to 1500 are really close. </div></div>


This is true. I have a friend who confirmed it. Its being loaded by Black Hills and its called the Mk 248 Mod 1. Its a 220gr Sierra loaded to 3.6". Performance was about the same between this round and the 338LM with a 250gr.

 

[CoryT]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

It's from Federal, not Black Hills. It's fairly close to a light loaded 338 at 1500. This is from the NDIA brief on the product improvement the Federal worked out for the M118LR, 300WM and 5.56

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf

Certainly this will work as a stopgap measure until a .338 system is fielded. One has to figure that if you can do this with a WM, what would a similar program do with the LM?

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

With the right tweaking a .300 WM will get you to 1500m okay. The .338 LM will get you there easier. Now, as with all things shooting, you have balances you have tow weigh between. For getting out to 1500m more easily with the .338 LM it eats barrels faster. It's also a lot more expensive buying bullets and powder and cases too. But, sometimes you have that feeling that shooting a .300 WM is like shooting a 5.56 @1000. You can get there accurately. But calling the wind is harder. The .338 over the .300 is really the way to go for the ultimate rifle. But, for shooting and practicing longer, and spending less to do it, the .300 is the way to go.

I had an AR-30 in .300 WM that I liked a lot. But one thing it did was cost me money when I wanted to shoot it much. I ended up opting to keep my 7WSM as it had better ballistics and was cheaper to shoot. But, it still isn't as good as the .338 for ballistics.

 

[dmg308]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

According to the Crane report the 220gr 300 win mag load they have adopted gives up very little to the 338 lapua 250gr load.I understand its a long 3.9 oal as well.

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Crane is wrong, I've shot them both, the 338 Lapua with ANYTHING match is superior to the best 300 Win Mag, it's the error budget analysis and supersonic range. The 338 Lap Mag with any match bullet has a supersonic range of 1600 - 1900 yards. The 300 Win Mag with the best VLD bullet is still 1500 supersonic range, which makes the operational limit about 1425 unless you have computer support.

Just thoughts.

 

[dmg308]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

I sure did'nt understand how but figured they know alot more then I.The 30gr difference in bullet weight has to increase energy as well which they dont address at all.Are there any turned bronze bullets for the 300 that would close the gap?

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Back when Lost River Ballistics was around, they made 200 gr. match solid with a .707 supersonic average BC. Now adays, i'd shoot the 195 gr. Lapua rebated boat-tail. It's slightly lower on the REAL BC than the 220 SMK, but you can drive it 1t 2950 - 3000 fps if you have a tight headspace on the belted magnum chamber, or if you fireform cases at a lower pressure, then load them hotter than hell

Bronze is a bad metal, very rough on barrels, a solid copper with some nickel on board for weight makes a better alloy. Don't know why Barnes uses the bronze stuff, very abrasive, but i'm sure they have their reasons.

Not trying to bang on Crane, but they've been known to put out ratty info, sometimes for very good reasons, sometimes for questionable reasons.

In my opinion, energy means nothing over shot placement. Bullets don't knock things down anyway, which you probably know. Rifle bullets damage another way, which is a sure argument starter. Won't touch it.

 

[lrs50bmg]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

The Crane decision had more to do with maximizing the existing platform, before the decision on the new SO Sniper Rifle system was finalized. I have a copy of the specs on the new ammo, and it is loaded to 68,000 psi!!! (with a max of 72,000!!). They already had problems with the last 2 lots of the Mk248 Mod 0 ammo. One had the powder contaminated, clumped up in the case, causing hangfires (had to dump 17,000 rounds), and the next lot was loaded 100-150fps hotter than spec. The additional recoil on this was causing the McCann MARS rails to shake loose on many of the rifles. The "upgraded" 300WM ammo (Mk248 Mod 1) is just a stop gap in my opinion. The new rifle will (most likely) be a .338 of some flavor (LM or NM) but it will be a while before it is in use. The component SO parties were still working out the details of what they wanted back in April. In the meantime, don't plan on reloading any of the Mk248 Mod 1 cases.....

 

[copper91]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Have and shoot them both but I prefer the 300 for most of my long range stuff. But,,,, if the mile shot had to be done then I choose the Lapua shooting 300g Sierra MK. 338Lapua is ballistically superior to 300wm no matter how you crunch the numbers.

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Hey guys, here are some real numbers based on radar data for these two rounds. 338 Lapua with the 300 gr. SMK is the clear winner, it's not close to 1500.

220 gr. Sierra MK @ 2860 fps:

Velocity at Supersonic Range 1122 fps, transitional limit is 1520 yards for operations.

Elevation needed from parallel bore: 67.50
20 mph windage deflection = 23.00 MOA
Flight Time: 2.8 seconds
Danger Space for a 1 meter target: 28 meters (14 meters long or short of the true range needed to strike a 1 meter kill zone on a target, which is generous)

300 gr. Sierra / 338 Lapua MK @ 2860 fps:

Velocity at Supersonic Range 1122 fps, transitional limit is 1825 yards for operations.

Elevation needed from parallel bore: 58.25 MOA
20 mph windage deflection = 18.5 MOA
Flight Time: 2.6 seconds
Danger Space for a 1 meter target: 35 meters (17.5 meters long or short of the true range needed to strike a 1 meter kill zone on a target, which is generous for a killing shot, not much advantage here actually)

Comparison of both rounds at 1600 yards.

338 over the 300 Win Mag by 16% on elevation needed at 1600.
338 over the 300 Win Mag by 24% on windage needed in 20 mph wind at 1600. Huge factor.
Flight time is a slight advantage for the 338 / 300 gr. For this scenario a 250 Lapua FMJBT is a better choice, shorter flight time over 1600 yards.
338 over the 300 Win Mag by 28% in Danger Space data.

Here is another less important for budgetary factory. The 220 gr. .308 caliber bullet at these pressures and velocities will foul barrels badly and reduce barrel life through fast throat erosion. The 190 Sierra MK was bad enough at 3000 fps on throats. The 338 Lapua using the 300 gr. bullet at a more humble 2850 fps will last a long time. I had a Dakota T-76 Longbow with over 4000 rounds on board, 300 SMKs and 270 gr. LRBT bullets mostly. The barrel was still strong last I saw it.

More discussion

Very cool.

Trigger

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

lrs50bmg: I kind of banged on crane earlier, but I have to say that in the field of sniper weapons systems, they have done a very fine job as well as ammo for those things. "we" were pushing for the 338/416 in the late 80s, crane wanted to do the 300 win mag, mostly because of mr. thomas and through the navy rifle team. Made sense from a known distance point of view, from a field shooter though, the 300 cannot compete with the 338 lapua (formerly 338/416, which sounds cooler

Crane built the M88 PIP, said hell no to the barrett M107 POS (piece of shi#), and boldly wrote why. Their observations in the mid 90s are still valid, the barrett isn't accurate enough and it has too many failures to feed. Whenever you're around a few of the barretts shooting, you inevitably hear the hand racking of ammo due to a high rate of failure to feed malfunctions. It can be made much better by scrapping the bipod and using an over the barrel bipod setup I built a while back for a couple of project guns.

Sorry, didn't mean to get off on the M107, but it's truely a POS. Some clown army officer said that the barrett has made more of a contribution to urban warfare than any other gun in the post 2003 Iraq war. What crap.

My unabashed thoughts...

Trigger

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Triggerfifty,

So here's a kind of a different angle on this one. I see the .300 as more of a long range anti-personnel round and the .338 as more of an anti-equipment/personnel round that really takes more of a dedicated role to employ than does a .300.

Meaning the .300 could be employed and crewed by as little as one man in the pure sharpshooter role (but spotter always an advantage.) And as many as three where a long term rotation is required. Targets are mostly personnel at various ranges with some light equipment being able to be destroyed at closer ranges. Tactically employed as a sharpshooter (regular unit asset) and long range ambush (true sniper role). Again, really personnel and unarmored vehicle only
The .338 would never be crewed by less than two as it's extra weight mandates both team members carry equipment and ammo for it. Up to a four man crew when rotation is necessary and for longevity of patrol. Targets would be personnel and light equipment at extended ranges. Light armour at close ranges, provided there are adequate AP rounds up to the job. Tactically employed as a long/short range sharpshooter(wall smasher, people poker and up to light armour engine killer) either to initiate attack or provide long range security. In the true sniper role it would be capable of ambushing not only personnel at extended distances it could engage and render un-useable for the time light motorized vehicles with some armor (technicals). That of course depending on the effectiveness of the AP rounds.

Ballistically, the 338 can win hands down overall. It is however, overkill in most short engagements. Always better to have more than enough than not enough, though. Any round could be built in any caliber to enhance the ballistic efficiency of a bullet. You mentioned an Army clown and also the Navy rifle team both going back to the .30 cal they know and love. Probably one of the biggest detriments to the .30 cal is the fact no one will build a bullet with a uber-long ogive to give it the ballistic advantage it really needs. There are too many kd and target shooters getting in the mix and the shorter ogive always gets settled on so the round leans to extreme accuracy with good range instead of extreme range with good accuracy. That's the whole reason I went back to the 7 WSM over the .300 WM is it had better ballistics. Now I know if JLK can build a 14 ogive in 7mm he could do it in .30 cal. Why not? ...as you said to many experts filling the slots on the panel that looks at this from the target and kd side of the military.

Those are my thoughts on it. Feel free to give <span style="text-decoration: underline">any</span> input if you want.

 

[CoryT]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

You must have some seriously fat .338's then. While a .50 might need a crew to haul around, a .338 should weigh no more than a pound or two over a .300 in the same configuration.

I've got three, one is 18.5, 17 and the lightweight is a mere 13. The 20" gun is quite capable at 1500 yards, plus it's handy in urban areas.

I can't actually think of a time I'd prefer the .300WM.

 

[Lindy]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Decisions about military weapons are not made only on ballistic considerations.

The Army has a lot of M24s in 7.62X51 which can be converted to .300 WinMag, and that certainly had an influence on their decision.

The original poster's question, though, was which was superior for a 1500-<span style="font-weight: bold">plus</span> rifle.

As Triggerfifty's data shows, there's no question that a .338 LM is superior in shooting characteristics.

The .338 is going to be more expensive to shoot, but people who are looking for cheap shooting aren't looking at ELR choices.

 

[gugubica]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Sandwarrior, I think you are confusing the 338 systems with a 50 cal.

The 338 does not require any more crew to support that a traditional caliber system. They are essentially just a long action set in a traditional stock. No 40 pound rifles here.

The reason our forces do not shoot a 338/416 (338LM) is quite simply politics and money. Just like everything else. There are factions of our military that do field these rifles, but they are not quite as suseptable to said politics and money.

 

[BLAWTON]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You must have some seriously fat .338's then. While a .50 might need a crew to haul around, a .338 should weigh no more than a pound or two over a .300 in the same configuration.

I've got three, one is 18.5, 17 and the lightweight is a mere 13. The 20" gun is quite capable at 1500 yards, plus it's handy in urban areas.

I can't actually think of a time I'd prefer the .300WM. </div></div>


Actually a 338 would weigh less if in the same configuration. The bore is larger as well as the chamber if its a lapua.

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CoryT</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You must have some seriously fat .338's then. While a .50 might need a crew to haul around, a .338 should weigh no more than a pound or two over a .300 in the same configuration.

I've got three, one is 18.5, 17 and the lightweight is a mere 13. The 20" gun is quite capable at 1500 yards, plus it's handy in urban areas.

I can't actually think of a time I'd prefer the .300WM.</div></div>

and

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gugubica</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sandwarrior, I think you are confusing the 338 systems with a 50 cal.

The 338 does not require any more crew to support that a traditional caliber system. They are essentially just a long action set in a traditional stock. No 40 pound rifles here.

The reason our forces do not shoot a 338/416 (338LM) is quite simply politics and money. Just like everything else. There are factions of our military that do field these rifles, but they are not quite as suseptable to said politics and money.</div></div>

{Removed head from 4th point of contact.}

Okay, that answers my question a little better. I don't know why, but I was thinking the .338 LM was on a super-size case. I think when I posted I was thinking Cheytac and Barrett 416 case size. Since that's the case I think you're right. Why leave a good opportunity on the table when you can have something like the .338 LM. I've watched too many slip past because some arrogant 'always know's more than you' (read doesn't have a clue) decides it wouldn't be a good thing for the overall function of the military. Or, any one of several non-applicable reasons I've heard not see improvement in our hardware.

 

[RyanScott]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Decisions about military weapons are not made only on ballistic considerations.

The Army has a lot of M24s in 7.62X51 which can be converted to .300 WinMag, and that certainly had an influence on their decision.


</div></div>

Last I heard they were going to put new actions and barrels in AICS chassis. I have no idea what parts they are going to keep from the current 7.62s, but it seems to me they ought to have just switched all at once. Several .338 weapons systems could have been procured COTS for the same price as the new M24s.

 

[Surgeon_Shooter]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

DUHHHH!

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

The stories and history of the 300 win mag vs. 338/416 controversies goes back to the mid and early 80s. Like I said earlier, the Navy mostly was the guys behind the 300 win mag, via RJ Thomas, the army, specifically ARSOC, (before the US SOCOM days), wanted the 338/416. Somewhere in the mid late 80s, the charter for developing US SOCOM sniper weapons systems was given to Crane / US NAVY. Personally, I thought this was a good move as the army powers that be had a bad and current history of selecting piss poor guns for their sniper weapons system inventory. Examples include the Barrett (any one of them), vs. EDM Windrunner, McMillan or any other bolt action rifle, and more currently the SR-25/M-110 SASS vs. the M-25 and pursing the 77 gr. 5.56mm bullet as a good gunfighter bullet (great in a LONG BARRELLED gun like the original SPR rifles, but a horrible bullet for killing in short barrel guns (muzzle velocity being the driver in these cases). The 5th Special Forces Group in the late 80s / early 90s went to a purpose built rifle (pic below), a .300 Win Mag based on the BAR rifle, in a move towards a semi-automatic medium caliber gun. Still, I'd take a bolt action ANYTHING over a semi-automatic long range rifle anyday. NO semi-automatic will ever be as reliable and accurate as a bolt action rifle, maybe a falling block rifle though

Here are some pics of earlier guns and a bit of their history.

This rifle is a M700 long action rifle built by Earl Reddick to prove that a 338 / 416 could be built on a standard action gun. He did have to open the ejection port long enough to eject live ammo (yet another army great requirement). Gun worked fine. The only issue at the time was a poor bonding between the aluminum bedding blocks in the H&S stocks, and the stock liner itself. That was a flaw that was quickly fixed and happened in a number of M-24 stocks.

This is a pic of a SOTIC shooter with his RAI convertible 338/416. The gun was convertible between 300 Win Mag, 308 and 338/416. Very tough gun and hellish accurate.

Another pic of the RAI convertible rifle.

The BAR based semi-automatic .300 Win Mag speced by 5th SFGA.

 

[sinister]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

The BAR pictured is from Arms Tech in Phoenix -- a very good system, but even better in a McMillan stock.

The Infantry Center has dorked most of the small arms requirements documents it drafts. They've got a Picatinny contractor writing them. The entire military suffers because the Infantry Center is the DOD non-SOF proponent for Small Arms.

The requirements document for the XM-110 stated the Army would replace the M24 on a 1-for-1 basis. USASOC/SOTIC said, "Hell no, make it an augmenting weapon," as did the Infantry Sniper School and AMU. DCD gave them the finger.

The Army was in the process of replacing the M24 1-for-1 as stated when USASOC came back to them with, "You ain't taking our bolt guns."

TRADOC went back to the G3 and stated, "We goofed."

USASOC intends to go to a 33-caliber magnum for the Long Range Sniper Rifle. Infantry had no requirements documents stating they even needed a bolt gun so will strap-hang on SOCOM's requirements document and R&D/acquisition plan (as they did with the M4).

The M24 will be re-barreled as the Army's "Bridge" gun until the SOCOM rifle is selected.

The M24 will get a new barrel and bolt face; a folding stock; a muzzle brake with slip-over suppressor; rails for night-fighting gear; and possibly a new scope.

 

[Graham]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Trigger, so good to see you back and posting this month.

Crane made its chief comparison between the .300WM 220gr SMK and the 250gr .338 bullet. It admitted in its power-point that the 300 grain .338 Lapua was superior in all respects except recoil, and that the 210VLD was probably the ticket in .300WM, but that its goal in developing the 220gr SMK load was to extend the life of the rifle system with the standard .300WM chamber.

If the goal is barrier penetration: .338 Lapua 300grain. No argument.
If the goal is to go regularly beyond 1500m: .338 wins again.

You just can't beat a higher BC, but if the goal is a low-cost ELR tackdriver:
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...397#Post1214397

 

[Huckleberry]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Sinister,
You finally retired?
Last time I saw you we were spotting for each other at the Stars and Bars.

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Hmmm, no one has mentioned "Training snipers" with all these MNS and Req. Docs., 338 and even 300 Mag school house guns wouldn't last a month at SOTIC or Ft. Benning without having to rebarrel them.

Which brings up another trainer issue, that i've seen for years. Train guys on the ranges in the language of MOA and you make 7.62 shooters out of them, NO transition course 2 or 3 days in length gets out that MOA head tuned for 7.62 when they transition up to 338s or whatever to .50s. Still always see guys OVER CORRECT on ranges, takes guys days to get that 7.62 head out of their head.

338s are cool, 408s are better, .375s trump them all, but only a .308 can stand the rigors of 120 round days for days on end in a sniper training program, especially during snaps and mover days.

Field shoot days are light, a measly 60-100 round day.

We had a couple 300 mag systems at SOTIC, tried them a couple of times with students, they did better on snaps and movers, (till the barrels were overheated, then their leads were trash because the ammo cooked while waiting for the next target to come up. Just minor training stuff.

BUT, that happens alot when guys other than OPERATORS and INSTRUCTORS start talking about the "guns the troops need". That BS will continue till hell gets air conditioning.

USASOC weapons dev., DCD, US SOCOM, Picatinny, Crane, all of them screw it up when it comes to listening to the shooters. Mostly it runs afoul in the "O" department, competitive shooters with rank that poke around in the "needs of the troops". In reality, there are just a damn few shooters with the depth of knowqledge required to take a gun from a needs statement to the developed gun. Somebody has got to run a blade in front of them to cut away the hangers on and fat eaters before the final gun is there.

You outta see the pile of docs I have in copy from the 80s and 90s about the "development" of guns. The Barrett M107 fiasco is a PERFECT PERFECT example of a piece of crap making it into the field. Hats of to Crane for having the nuts to say, "this gun is a piece of shit and we won't use it". The Army dummied down the requirements so that the Barrett was the only gun sorry enough to "qualify" for it, under the guise that a semi-auto could "bracket" faster than a bolt gun. READ, we can waste ammo faster than a bolt gun.

Sorry, my very strong opinion. Have been seeing the same dick dance for nearly 26 years involved with sniper weapons systems or some other word they're using these days for a precision KILLING rifle.

Don't forget to smile for the camera!!

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Triggerfifty,

I'm almost laughing (but it's not funny really) because that was the same crap I saw twenty some odd years ago when I got out. Keep in mind I was a four year guy, "81-'85. But I went into S-3 at the 1st RGR BN. after two and a half years on the line. We supported and evaluated the Sniper "assets" we had at the time. Also, keep in mind I was on the South end of the perimeter (platoon size) in Grenada when our Snipers were hitting and killing Cubans from the North end of the perimeter with M-21's. One may or may not decide I might qualify in intensity of warfare to make a statement. But, I will qualify that those were about the most effective weapons I saw for output. Physically and mentally on the Cubans. Spectre didn't even do the damage mentally that our snipers did.

So anyhow, after Grenada we go on this rampage to see if we could get bolt guns. Something like the M40 that two of our best snipers trained with. Nope, the M21 is the best option. It's semi-auto and provides a high rate of fire in case of compromise. Later on the M24 gets adopted in te 7.62x51. Then the 118LR ammo comes out to help with range. Good enough...it seems like I keep hearing. At least they got a bolt action ...with potential. Now if they'd just use it.

The stupid thing is Carlos Hathcock won his national title with a .300 Win Mag in '64-'65? Before Vietnam had really spooled up. At least someone could have seen then that round had longer better range potential than a .308.

Moving on, I think the .308 is probably the best day in, day out gun for it's longevity. But that doesn't make it the optimal field choice. It makes it the optimal training choice. Once an operator is solid on his fieldcraft, tactics and marksmanship he can then move up to a higher powered system. That doesn't require the repetitiveness of initial training. Yes, hanging bigger cases in hot barrels is going to make them shoot hotter. The upgrade training can allow for cooling time. Even use multiple rifles as the principles of how the operator got to where he is has already been established. What he really needs to know simply is how this round shoots differently than the old round. All of the other hoopla can be dropped for the time being. Just focus on ballistics.

As noted in my previous post, it tends to run afoul when a target shooter (with some rank) wants to get involved with the sniper programs. Because he wants to hit a button at 600 yds. and the snipers are trying to hit a body at 1200, or farther. And the requirements for the bullet to do those two things are different. As I said before they want an accurate bullet with decent range. What a sniper needs is a bullet/case with great range with decent accuracy. 600m is pretty dam close if you're alone or in a pair and go to pop someone...and their reaction force is a full hour ahead of your reaction force. I understand the frustration.

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Sandwarrior..

your post put a smile on my face. Heck, at one point I was in front of the SWTG commander, and ex CAG guy, explaining to him why suppressors don't affect accuracy or velocity (some, not all). Showed him data, offered to show him for real, he got red-faced and tossed me out. Had that scenario repeat with more O-5s and O-6s that i'd like to remember. In every single case, full re-training and explanation had to take place, one guy listened, still went nowhere.

SOTIC being involved with the 24 led to some good things, competition iron sights that were questionable for combat use, but could do the job pretty good in a pinch. Better yet, they provided a better system for "training" snipers. Get a guy good with irons, and he's spooky with optics, as long as we don't put 7.62mm head into his head.

Necessarily, training will have to evolve with introduction of new systems. When the .50s first came out in the late 80s, the students at SOTIC were given 4 hours of shooting with the gun. I mean shooting very loosely. It was from 1000 yards with a Daisy M600 (damn good gun). Saw variations from shooters of 1 MOA at 1k to 5 MOA @ 1k. Huge variations of capability within a class of very excellent 7.62mm shooters.

That's what prompted me to write my book when I retired (not beating my chest here, it was good venting). Leap forward to the future, we get .300 Win Mags in the JOS system, we could request them and get them for special needs. CRANE built, and damn fine guns. We, at 1st SFGA had to bum ammo from the Navy or the 2/75 Rangers and SF guys didn't have it "on their allocation books", spent 6 years trying to change that, couldn't get it done.

blah blah blah... sorry, I ramble. There has been so much BS wrapped around those dreaded words, "one shot - one kill", except when reality is applied to it. Put some guy on the history channel TV show (puke), and all these gloomy speaking guys come out talking about blah blah blah... BUT, in training, the guys aren't given the stuff needed, nor special training on the heavy guns. The canadians are much much more advanced and better at it. The AMR (anti-material rifles) at the infantry center are introduced (or were when I was up there in 2002) in the master sniper program. And they do damn well.

I can think of about 4 guys over the years with the machining knowledge, application knowledge, training knowledge and the ability to tune their tongue (not me) that can take a rifle from a need statement to a shooting gun. NONE of those guys would need any "input" along the way, but instinctively and correctly would know it. Little in the field of sniping changes in concept, fundamentals, or principles. All that changes is the hardware and operational needs. All else spins off of those things.

Typing off of the cuff,

Trigger doing what I do now, less contentious (sp?)

 

[Graham]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Triggerfifty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The canadians are much much more advanced and better at it. The AMR (anti-material rifles) at the infantry center are introduced (or were when I was up there in 2002) in the master sniper program. And they do damn well.</div></div>From first the Australians, then the Canadians, we could learn much.

Yup, it's 'contentious': meaning inclined to dispute or disagree (or even to engage in lawsuits).

 

[Arch]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Triggerfifty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and ex CAG guy, explaining to him

That's what prompted me to write my book when I retired.

blah blah blah... sorry, I ramble. </div></div>

Yep. I would agree. I don't put as much faith in all the craperbole online. I have used both and the animals go down. Are you really using math or selling something else? The one shot, one kill language has been updated to big P sub k equals one. Do the math. In the world of probability entirety = 1. It is a sign of good faith to seek perfection.

Little changes in the first three, agreed. But nothing chamges in the other two either. Show me where.

Write a book if you have to.

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Shoeing horses when you're young ain't a bad thing. It's when you've got a few too many years doing it and you've gotta strap something to your butt so you can ratchett your back to the straight up position is when you question why you started doing it. I don't know too many farrier's I can't say that about. But most of them I also know have enjoyed being around horses all their lives. I've missed them being here in the city life. I have my doggies though. That is kind of a nasty looking chip on her hoof, btw)

Anyhow, as you mention 7.62 in someones head, I have to laugh. As a kid reloading I went over and over through the books I had and always the 7mm came up on top for BC. I wanted one pretty badly, but all I could afford was that 'stupid' .243. What an unknown secret ballistic demon would have been unleashed if we had known in the '70's that 6mm's could have great BC's. But, when I got into the Army the whole mentality was '7.62'. It took me a few years again, to realize that I was right all along. For the most part the 7.62x51 is a hog when it comes to down-range performance. 6 and 6.5mm's take most all the competitions yet barely get considered for sniper platforms. Progress gets made and things like the .338, .375/.408Ch .416 Barrett and the .50 cal become accepted. Then, seems like after every conflict, the mil-beancounters come along and without any knowledge of how well what works or not, it gets decided "need this, not that, out that goes, ...etc." Meetings and evaluations then take several years and one thing gets accomplished from all of them. A system that makes everybody happy except the end-user, the soldier. A great big, WTF!?? or WTHPTT (who the hell put this together??)
When anybody tells me it costs too much to fund a longer range sniper system, I reply that the Air Force just spent 1.7 billion (yes, billion) studying and implementing their new digital tiger stripe uniforms. I really don't see the point, when they too could benefit from a longer range sniper system. And, they have no need what-so-ever to go to that type fatigue. It just isn't a function of their jobs. Any one of the summer or winter camo uniforms already in place would have worked fine. As you stated too many times you stated the truth perfectly plain as to what you need...and all you get is a "We'll consider it" (read, I need you out of my office so I can prepare some statistical graphs that I don't have all the tangible evidence on, so I'll wing it.)

Anyhow, bottom line is if we could get the very best sniper system currently available to us we should. As the topic thread states. If you want the best performer between the two, and damn near every other cartridge, the .338 is it.

 

[Arch]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

.338LM Yes.

They shoot bean counters don't they? I would say that this is not the place to place the blame. Amongst people that count, and cannot agree, shooters themselves should stand up and be counted. Or should I say, people that put themselves in a position to speak on shooting but do not shoot at meat or eat the meat that's killed. There is plenty of fault to go around.

Of the three things that matter in our system; money, money and money, it would seem that money seems to get and hold the upper hand.

If people that matter would spend more of their time building a mindset for the small community rather than selling stuff and writing about themselves, it would be a simple matter of the ruling class to decide that these people made more sense than a semiauto rifle designed over 15 years ago, a better sailing amtrac that won't hold a squad or the helicopter plane.

Because in this case the strengths of individuality work against the small group, the odds are not very good.

Add a charging handle perhaps, and transition some jobs to government service. It'll quiet down.

And so it goes...

 

[Graham]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Arch and Trig,

Whether it's fair or not, the foundations of ethics have always been under attack from 1) ideology posing as truth; and 2) self-interest in the form of money. This dynamic is not new, nor new to the military.

According to President Truman:

"Glenn Martin was making B-26 bombers, and they were crashing and killing kids right and left.
So I said to Martin, 'What's wrong with these planes?'
He said, 'The wing-spread isn't wide enough.'
So, I said, 'Then why aren't you making it wider?'
And he said, "I don't have to... And besides, I've got a contract.'
So I said, "All right. If that's the way you feel, I'll see to it that your contract is cancelled and you won't get another.'
'Oh,' he says, 'if that's the way it's going to be , we'll fix it,' and he did."

It's a question of where the buck stops.

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Guys, this got political, i'm out. Hairballs interfering with development of needed weapons systems is one thing. Using political muscle (like our current turd), is addressing political issues.

One is an uneducated blunder, the other is simply dangerous.

Respectfully,
Trigger

 

[Graham]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

I've read your book. A few times. I, for one, would be interested to know when and how other organizations have better integrated heavy rifle training into their comprehensive marksmanship programs and, from what information we have in the public domain, whether doing so made a measurable difference on the ground.

 

[Arch]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

T50. It is both uneducated blundering and dangerous. But only for the cycle, which in American thought is app. 4 years. Then it starts again. The interfering has always been there, and politics will never go away. And then there is time. Most of the current drive began in earnest on a range at Yuma in Feb 05. I saw the results; heck, I watched them. But small bands of merry men do not make a major offensive, and when William Wallace appears he always seems to be driving a wagon sponsored by a rich nobleman.

Graham. When and how has been/is reactive rather than proactive. PM to follow.

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Graham...

The agencies that i've worked with outside the US changed their training programs in a couple of phases. Phase I was a technical briefing to the commander on how their current methods fall short, what is needed, and how it can be provided.

It's a rundown of the shortfalls of 7.62mm head, (what I call it), changing the language of a sniper team, and sometimes the configuration, identifying weaknesses in the systems, etc. In one very modern ally army's situation, they had put away all of their good cleaning stuff, Shooters Choice, Sweets, etc., and was told all that was needed for their mcmillan rifles was breakfree,,, he was a former US military USMC instructor. Nothing against him, but those guns wouldn't hold the target frame at 1000 yards, they were so fouled up. AFter working them for 2 days, the were at 1.5 MOA with some Amax that was delivered. Not too bad.

Phase II was another meeting to setup a training program where we presented a "train the trainer" program that certified a core of their current instructors in the special skills to bring up small gun shooters (308) to .50 cal shooters. Phase II also was introducing ballistic computers for long range shooting and how that actually saved them alot of ammo money. When 12 guys have to take their guns and shoot 3 different types of ammo at each of the 100 meter lines, all the way to 2500 meters to get "dope" (I hate that work, cause dope doesn't mean anything when you fly to the other side of the planet to operate), the ballistic computer did all the work in 1 day, vs. 6-8 days in the past. The savings in ammo cost alone covered the cost of the computers.

Phase III was a 3 week training program. Most of what is in that book is the basis of what I use for training heavy gun shooters. It's the shooting aspects of the gun, matching ammunition, ammunition selection, precision range finding (with and without lasers), environmental and meteorological effects, special ammunition management techniques, target analysis (human and material), application of fire, and some other things.

It's 3 intensive weeks with a 2 day break in the middle of it. The 50s are special, as is any big bore high volume gun system. I've worked with 14.5mm and 20mm rifles in the past, they all take special consideration. It is the folly of follies to assume that a graduate of a sniper program, or an NRA High Master can just make one of these things work well. It's not reality. All of the video that is on the youtube site (triggerfifty) is from training scenarios, and some live stuff. Alot of the knot head comments guys post there seem to be from teeny bopper wanna be's, or older guy wanna be's that don't get it.

But it's like Art Sievers told me, he was the coach of the US Navy rifle team in the 60s, and took the US team to a gold in the 1969 Palma rifle matches... he said "some guys just don't and won't ever get it, that's why we weed them out and give them a little gun".

Short history,,

Trigger

 

[Triggerfifty]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Was there a 408 rifle at that particular yuma shoot in 05?

 

[Graham]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Thanks. Good info. And none of it too sensitive - good call.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Triggerfifty</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...they had put away all of their good cleaning stuff, Shooters Choice, Sweets, etc., and was told all that was needed for their mcmillan rifles was breakfree.</div></div>If my info is accurate, that was a general trend that had started years earlier with everything that had a barrel, then got worse with the .50's.

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

I want to avoid the political side, but the subject brought up about B-26's is the classic one. In theater, experienced pilots were doing a great job with them. And the planes were doing a great job. Due to the massive training requirements for new airmen, the B-26 started having a lot of accidents. The aerodynamics of that aircraft was way ahead of the previous aircraft the trainees had just qualified in, and the quirks were very nasty. But that was what it took to get the performance. What unfortunately went on then was instead of training people up to the level of the aircraft. The aircraft had to be brought down to their level. The mods on the later aircraft actually took away some of the advantage it had of high manueuverability at high speeds. Yes, you had to land at 120-135 mph. Our airline pilots do that all day now. It ended WWII with two very different records. One of the highest accident rates in training and one of the lowest loss/accident rates in combat. The biggest factor with that aircraft was experience and training. FWIW, the worst accident rate of any WWII combat aircraft was the F4U Corsair. Bring the pilots/operators up to the level of the equipment and you now have a formidable weapon. Not vice-versa.

In the sniper world we aren't dealing with accident rates as much. But we are dealing with success rates. Mission failure rates in this field though mean having to go about taking objectives the hard way. If a piece of equipment is going great-gonzo in the field why does it get canned? Usually because some pooh-pooh boys can't all qualify on it. I'm no doubt being repetitive but that is why the training and evaluation is so important. Amazing though how many years you've had to fight to keep on board what I had heard of twenty something years ago.

As a side note to all this. At my last Grenada reunion I was talking to a guy in my platoon who does work for a non-profit acquiring sniper gear for our soldiers. I was blah blahing about my 7WSM and how far it would shoot. He got a little irritated with me and I then realized his frustration as he is having a tough time even getting the equipment at platoon level to get dedicated shooters on at 600. Obviously, higher success doesn't mean higher priority. They'll continue to train and do their best.

 

[Arch]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

I want to say yes about the .408 but the more I think about it I am not certain. That might have been elsewhere but close in time. I will verify with the data.

Your points about reaching further with accuracy are certainly valid, and certainly require taking first one step and then several outside of one's comfort zone. That said, a realist understands that being at the top of the not f*&^'ed up as everyone else list stills means being at the top of a list! Those that wear a basic rifle qualification badge in the Corps probably qualifies them as top 10% among the world's population. My travels to some of the allies in the mid-90's found them not advancing past the 700 in 'elite' training, and the use of heaters for zero followed by pop-up targets that either fall over or not. Admittedly, my circles may not have been as small as yours and on average the fighters were quite youngish. Young men such as these have scored high marks with the "small" gun...such as regiments have handed down forever. That part I do not see changing quickly since every summer sees a replacement of 25% of the workforce theoretically (using my U.S. cycles theory) and the bridge between paper and 'other' target competitors has only widened, even considerably. What's more, the USMC long ago adopted Heinlein's theory of specialization and see this as something only for insects. Take cleaning gear as an example. Thus, our very best serve only shortly before contemplating the greener grass of industry, or are forced to accept mannerisms and training that allows them to stand very close to their boss.

Whether 'any' of this is really new or not is debateable. I dig through the 30's, and then the 50's, and then the 80's and find arguments that are remarkably similiar. Only the number of advertisements and experts has grown. It is said that there is heavy interest now in something called the 'cat-o-polt,' a device that can throw a large rock over 400 yards and crush walls...

Being born with a thick skull, a uni-brow, and eyes tucked way back under protruding bone has had its advantages in terms of certain playing fields and muscle memory, but your mention of little boxes that compute mathematics not only peaks my interest but is dead on. A gargantuan effort to make this commonplace for the past 6 years has been underway and I am glad to say that over 5 people are now interested...

Excuse my sarcasm, but great interest in moving forward has peaked and moved on, and the next group is preparing to take up the banner...

 

[Graham]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Guys, we're not talking politics, we're just talking about people in large organizations: People change slowly; societies change slower still; and militaries don't change if they can avoid doing so. That's not a state secret.

In the minds of most military trainers since General George C. Marshall, the point of training soldiers is to get them to do the opposite of instinct, nothing more. The concept is an old one: Napoleon said the rational soldier would run away; he emphasized training as necessary to get them to engage in battle. Everything else was a bonus. After all, it was government work.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Forty-One</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Excuse my sarcasm, but great interest in moving forward has peaked and moved on, and the next group is preparing to take up the banner...</div></div>That's the tide. But there are always a few, from the prerational tradition, swimming against it. Their actions are rarely understood at the time, and they find themselves in constant conflict with their superiors, but their efforts do make a difference.

I'll give you one example: Garibaldi. He was a military man who took national power by force. How he did it is the key to interrupting the personal political cycle that Trigger identified as prevalent in so many rigid organizations.

A brilliant guerilla fighter, Garibaldi made a united Italy a military power while at the same time embracing liberal change that would shock even the progressives of today. His stint at the working level in more than a few navies culminated in his participation in a republican mutiny against the King of Piedmont. Exiled for it, he honed his skills leading rebellions in South America until he could return to Italy to unite the country.

Garibaldi did not believe in the ideas [of fascism and racial superiority] prevalent in the government at the time, but he used them as forces to consolidate his power. In 1860 he became Dictator of the Two Sicilies. Then he turned around and handed his power to local authorities. His doing so probably forced Italian unification. He then walked away, and spent the next twenty years living in a small house on the island of Caprera advocating for things like workers rights, racial equality, the emancipation of women and religious freedom.

The key to Garibaldi's success is that while he butted heads with the politicians above him, and refused outright to play their games, he nevertheless left them room to manoeuvre. His refusals were not tactical retreats designed to consolidate his position, they were sincere ethical stands that bolstered his credibility and elevated his status.

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The key to Garibaldi's success is that while he butted heads with the politicians above him, and refused outright to play their games, he nevertheless left them room to manoeuvre. His refusals were not tactical retreats designed to consolidate his position, they were sincere ethical stands that bolstered his credibility and elevated his status.</div></div>

That is a good example, however I must say that when in the military we did not have the power to be the head of a revolt. As a civilian I find myself banging on closed doors more often than not.

 

[Arch]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

Two good examples.

About two decades ago I came across a quote someone used about the government. I cannot find where I stored it or who said it, but it went something like this:

No matter what someone refers to, they're talking about money.

 

[Graham]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Forty-One</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No matter what someone refers to, they're talking about money.</div></div>Someone also said: The business of America is business. The challenge is, in business, how to normalize the ethical response: "No."

 

[sandwarrior]

Re: .338 Lapua over .300 WM?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Forty-One</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Two good examples.

About two decades ago I came across a quote someone used about the government. I cannot find where I stored it or who said it, but it went something like this:

No matter what someone refers to, they're talking about money.</div></div>

Too often that is true. I am probably like any other businessman in that if I had the ability to do a job for the U.S. Government, or any Government deemed by the U.S. as an ally and therefore in need of my services, I would expect to get paid for it.

This post as I see it, and I hope many others is that the subject needs to be brought up again and again that we can move forward from the 'little gun' or '7.62 head' or '"magic" fall-off point of accuracy' mentalities to rifles of previously unheard of accuracy at extreme range that a team of two can carry. This is a benefit to our troops. And believe me the cost is nowhere near what I've seen other projects go to. I say that to use as a fair comparison.

My bottom line is any and everybody who can put pressure on your Congressman or Senator to look into helping push the envelope of long range, should. I know I do. That statement is not political. It is how we get things done for our service people around the world. And with the right people watching it doesn't become a money-fest for some company not willing to do the full and right job for it.

That being said I now have to go and fix my daughters .380 auto.