-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Baddest military action - based target/sniper rifle
- Thread starter Forgetful Coyote
- Start date
No...out of my price range, or availability.
Speaking of which, I gave an incorrect model number regarding the Sig 550. The Sig 550 is a 5.56 chambered rifle. The rifle I was talking about on page 2 of this thread was probably a 510. The one I'm thinking of was an accurized version of the STGw 57. It shoots the 7.5x55 Swiss. My apologies.
And no, I never shot one either. But, I know the Swiss build great rifles.
Last edited:
Along that line, something here I see not well mentioned is the Mk 18(?) or M16 variant of a sniper rifle. Many consider the round to be underpowered. And, for a long while, I've included myself in that group. But, the reality is it's powerful enough to reach 1k with the 70-77 gr. OTM type bullet, and still be magazine fed. It is certainly powerful enough to kill at what most sniping distances are encountered in either Afghanistan or Iraq.
Back when I was in, I found out first hand how accurate the rifle can be. Now that we've gone to a tight twist and flat-top receivers that can be optimized for a quality optic, the accuracy of the platform is pretty incredible. Using the heavier round is actually optimal as you can hit farther and still carry more ammo than a bigger cartridge system. And, if it comes down to it, the rifle is compatible with what everyone else is carrying. So, there's lots and lots of pew, pew, pew potential.
So, FWIW, this would fall under the sniper as needed/still badass service rifle (more firepower).
Back when I was in, I found out first hand how accurate the rifle can be. Now that we've gone to a tight twist and flat-top receivers that can be optimized for a quality optic, the accuracy of the platform is pretty incredible. Using the heavier round is actually optimal as you can hit farther and still carry more ammo than a bigger cartridge system. And, if it comes down to it, the rifle is compatible with what everyone else is carrying. So, there's lots and lots of pew, pew, pew potential.
So, FWIW, this would fall under the sniper as needed/still badass service rifle (more firepower).
Yessir the Mk 12 SPR is a awesome setup(Mk 18 is the 10.5in barrel CQB rifle) and one that I most definitely plan to make myself a clone of. Such an iconic rifle.
I thought the Mk 12 was a 7.62... Since it post dates me I got the number wrong. Still a really good choice for most anything you would need in a sniper rifle.
Mk 11 is 7.62, similar rifle to the M110 sniper. Mk 12 was a outgrowth of the M4 SOPMOD program IIRC, to make a SPR(Special Purpose Receiver) so that operators could slap a long range upper on their M4, which eventually went on to become its own standalone rifle.
Mk 18 is also a outgrowth of the SOPMOD program, albeit with the opposite purpose/focus than a Mk 12:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Quarters_Battle_Receiver
Speaking of M4's, I really need to go ahead and do me a M4A1 Block II clone. Such a sweet little rifle, and basically has become the new RECCE rifle for SOCOM most recently due to the optics now available and also the accuracy of the platform. Many of the new M4 Bk II's have the Colt SOCOM 14.5" heavy barrel and all have a free-float rail; which makes for a platform that sees Sub-MOA with match ammo. Hence, as said, these new M4's have mostly made the RECCE rifle obsolete and taken their place.
Last edited:
Funny with all this money spent on research and development, we couldn't just slap a good scope on an A3
Along with a good barrel, trigger, FF rail, and bipod; thats essentially what big Army & Marines did for their iterations of the same concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Squad_Advanced_Marksman_Rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Squad_Designated_Marksman_Rifle
But you know SOCOM has to have their secret squirrel stuff, suppressors, etc. Not that those aint extremely beneficial though... they most certainly are, especially for what the SEALs and their ilk will be doing with them. Traditional line infantry dont necessarily NEED suppressors, though I could make the case that it would be extremely beneficial even in conventional units to equip em with cans.
One of the biggest problems I saw when I was in 30+ years ago now, is that the training was the first thing to go. then the equipment got neglected. Resulting in, "Oh, I guess we can't do this..."
If anyone in the chain of command of a regular rifleman didn't want him to get above and beyond training, they put a stop to it. That was in the Rangers. I could imagine how little is available to a regular infantry guy (we were infantry, we just had access to more schools/weapons). A lot of times you got a five minute course on it. You were an expert if you did well.
So, yeah, the high speed guys get good equipment, and they also get the funding to keep it going. They had cool stuff, but it had to pass rigorous training to see if it could be taken to combat. Part of the funding issue is that gives leeway to spend a whole bunch of money remaking the same wheel.
Last edited:
This was super informative!!! I just recently bought a m38 and am interested in the fsr 89, what would be the price range for one in today's market?
This was super informative!!! I just recently bought a m38 and am interested in the fsr 89, what would be the price range for one in today's market?
Happen to find one on GB just now:
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/770862377
Currently at $2,595, I have no clue if that is the going price
Happen to find one on GB just now:
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/770862377
Currently at $2,595, I have no clue if that is the going price
Wow, a real FSR 89 was on gunbroker. Never seen that before. I am not a hardcore enough collector for such a rarity, but a nice CG-80 be my preferred substitute.
Coyote!
haven't seen you in a while.
From what I understood it was straight up the improvements you see. Better sighting system, adjustable stock, and bedded better(?) Don't forget that they were a separate project and very few converted in comparison. That right there will double on what they would normally be worth.
The FSR had a more ergonomic stock, and perhaps the lastest rear sights from the late 1980s, but was not drastically different from a late model CG-80. My reading on forums is that very few FSR89s were ordered, b/c in 1990 SIG introduced the Sauer 200 STR match rifle which was approved for competition, and most top competitors assumed the newer design was superior to the old M96 action. Here's a link.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_200_STR
Here's a thread with some pcis of FSR 89, presumably most of these rifles are still in Sweden:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?213894-FSR89
...I knew one collector of Swedish rifles in the US who spent a few years looking for an FSR 89 to no avail, so I suspect the one on gunbroker went to a good home. Not many were made in 1989, and very, very few made it here to the U.S. Probably the 'ultimate' target rifle that began life strictly as a military weapon at the end of the 19th century. I sold my CG-80 to that US collector years ago as he 'had to have it', but wish I hadn't...as they are hard to find too, but they were made for 8 or so years, and not as rare as an FSR 89, that was apparently made for basically 1 or 2 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_Sauer_200_STR
Here's a thread with some pcis of FSR 89, presumably most of these rifles are still in Sweden:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?213894-FSR89
...I knew one collector of Swedish rifles in the US who spent a few years looking for an FSR 89 to no avail, so I suspect the one on gunbroker went to a good home. Not many were made in 1989, and very, very few made it here to the U.S. Probably the 'ultimate' target rifle that began life strictly as a military weapon at the end of the 19th century. I sold my CG-80 to that US collector years ago as he 'had to have it', but wish I hadn't...as they are hard to find too, but they were made for 8 or so years, and not as rare as an FSR 89, that was apparently made for basically 1 or 2 years.
I'm in the early stages of a build of one of these. A Singaporean Police CG637. Only 500 ever made. In 7.62Nato.
Attachments
That sounds all really interesting. I think I should count the voices for every rifle model... 
To find the"winner"model... .
Merry Christmas to all of you !
Winchester M70 Van Orden
To find the"winner"model... .
Merry Christmas to all of you !
Winchester M70 Van Orden
I love the M96 and and variants. I recently lucked onto a CG63 and CG80 for sale at the same time by the same chap who had imported many Swede rifles into New Zealand over the years and I had bought FSR rifles off of him in the past. I got the pair for $1K USD and was a very happy Swede collector. I believe the m/41B to be the best sniper rifle ever made from a standard service rifle. It did see service with the Finns against the Soviets in the Continuation War as small numbers were gifted to Finland by Sweden. There is a famous photo that I'm sure you all would have seen that is supposed to depict Sïmo Häyhä in full snow camouflage and he has an m/41B in his hands. It is clearly a staged propaganda shot and may not have even been the great man himself (he has a face mask on) let alone knowing that he used an open sighted Nagant variant throughout. I agree that the Swede lineage is pretty formidable and for interest there is a little known variant of the CG63 called the CG637 which was built for the Singaporean Police with a total of less than 500 ever made in 7.62 NATO. I'm in the process of building a replica except Australian gun laws don't allow you to build rifles unless you are a certified gunsmith and none of the gunsmiths here want to do a 7.62 conversion because of the supposed 'weakness' of the actions and potential liability which is a shame because I literally have every component for the build except I have a Nagant scope mount instead of the specialised one in the pics.
My viewpoint of terminal energy being delivered precisely, if allowed to run rampant among historical Sniper Arms, would be a long action (M-24?)?. chambered for a 280AI, with a 284/175SMK, out of a 26" barrel. If Speer made a comparable diameter/weight/and BC Gold Dot projectile, that would be my preference. I would put a modern military scope on it with around an upper magnification of 32x, and see what would fail to fall before it. I'm not an especially big fan of semi-auto snipers, but I do agree; they have their places.
With all due respect to the past, outlawing only narrowly defined projectiles in today's battlefield is A) a waste of damned good technology), and B) giving ground to a big majority of potential opponents who don't give a rats ass about the Law of War. Ever wonder what the Spetz were using on the Muj?
Those who differ might be well advised to spend to some spare time in the Orthopedic wards of our Nation's Military Hospitals. The injuries/wounds seen there are from direct contraventions and violations of the Hague Convention. I doubt that agreement was ever intended to tie legitimate combatants hands behind their backs.
Fight asymmetric, die asymmetric. The first American that's cut down by 'illegal" ordnance, the gloves come off and the hollow points come out. Fair is fair and don't try to cram anything else down the American War Fighter's throat. Back in 'Nam, fruitcake commanders got fragged. Few wondered why. Probably every Marine I knew over there had a razor edge on their bayonet.
For most of Sniping history, scopes have had very low lower magnification powers, but IMHO, that's probably something from out of the past. I would put a DMR in the hands of the spotter, and for the Sniper, a sidearm along the lines of an MP-5 with closeup optics. If the sniper is under nearby direct fire, he's probably off his mission anyway, and giving him a means to remedy that would be my own first choice, rather than leaving him hanging in the breeze.
Greg
With all due respect to the past, outlawing only narrowly defined projectiles in today's battlefield is A) a waste of damned good technology), and B) giving ground to a big majority of potential opponents who don't give a rats ass about the Law of War. Ever wonder what the Spetz were using on the Muj?
Those who differ might be well advised to spend to some spare time in the Orthopedic wards of our Nation's Military Hospitals. The injuries/wounds seen there are from direct contraventions and violations of the Hague Convention. I doubt that agreement was ever intended to tie legitimate combatants hands behind their backs.
Fight asymmetric, die asymmetric. The first American that's cut down by 'illegal" ordnance, the gloves come off and the hollow points come out. Fair is fair and don't try to cram anything else down the American War Fighter's throat. Back in 'Nam, fruitcake commanders got fragged. Few wondered why. Probably every Marine I knew over there had a razor edge on their bayonet.
For most of Sniping history, scopes have had very low lower magnification powers, but IMHO, that's probably something from out of the past. I would put a DMR in the hands of the spotter, and for the Sniper, a sidearm along the lines of an MP-5 with closeup optics. If the sniper is under nearby direct fire, he's probably off his mission anyway, and giving him a means to remedy that would be my own first choice, rather than leaving him hanging in the breeze.
Greg
Last edited:
I am a big fan of the .77grn SMK aka MK262 Mod 0, I think we are now up to Mod 2. Used them in Iraq 05-06.
I was in Fallujah in 05, and you’re right. That’s a good round.
Beautiful rifle! That looks like a target model (iron target sights) with scope installed. That scope mount is way high that would make it difficult to get a proper cheek weld on the stock.
I have the target model.
The first few pages of this thread remind me again why I love stopping by “vintage”. Very interesting and well-read fellows here that have the historical and practical firearms knowledge to really nerd out, love it!
@sandwarrior, after reading your quote from 2017 it brought to mind the 6mm ARC which some are saying is the 6.5 Grendel as it was meant to be. Supposedly SOCOM or some other secret squirrel group is playing with it. 1000 yd plus capability with decent energy in a small frame platform with low recoil... mags may be the weak point for now. We shall see, i in just built one. See quote below from @sandwarrior.
“Fast forward to the AR types. You have the -15's and rounds that went in them, and the -10' that run .308 sized cartridges. Of the -15's I found that a 6.5G in a MK12 platform was the best range and accuracy. Better by far than the Mk12 chambered in 5.56x45 using Mk262 (77 gr. SMK) and even single fed 90 gr. SMK. But, these only saw limited use and the mainstream army does not seem interested even if it works better.”
@sandwarrior, after reading your quote from 2017 it brought to mind the 6mm ARC which some are saying is the 6.5 Grendel as it was meant to be. Supposedly SOCOM or some other secret squirrel group is playing with it. 1000 yd plus capability with decent energy in a small frame platform with low recoil... mags may be the weak point for now. We shall see, i in just built one. See quote below from @sandwarrior.
“Fast forward to the AR types. You have the -15's and rounds that went in them, and the -10' that run .308 sized cartridges. Of the -15's I found that a 6.5G in a MK12 platform was the best range and accuracy. Better by far than the Mk12 chambered in 5.56x45 using Mk262 (77 gr. SMK) and even single fed 90 gr. SMK. But, these only saw limited use and the mainstream army does not seem interested even if it works better.”
When I posted that, the 6mm ARC had not come about yet. I was working off the 6mm G/.243LBC/6mmAR etc. cartridge.
I'm waiting (have been for a few months now) on some 6mm ARC brass. With the slight reduction in case size, it may work better than the Grendel in that you can push heavier for caliber bullets than the Grendel can in 6.5mm. Meaning you have the room to do it, we'll see how hard they can be pushed.
The military seems to keep dunking it's feet into the cold water of a new cartridge every year now. With no real progress being made on the administrative side. There have definitely been advantages and better results from this new crop of cartridges. However, the military being the military, they get to a certain level and some bullshit billion dollar bullet box needs to get tested.
If we ever do step up in power and capability of a new cartridge, we will have to align the administrative side before any improvements get accepted.
With monetary constraints along with supply and current inventory of the "effective" NATO calibers I suspect not seeing a change or any real change (SOF will see it, but the rest of us, not so much).
I liked what you said because it's true. Not because I like the fact. It's not a fact I like.
Yeah, I’m not holding my breath for anyone but SOCOM on the ARC for a while. I just thought it was interesting that in 2017 you were discussing the Grendel and now that Big army realized the 556 can’t hit guys shooting belt fed 30’s from the hills they want a little more capable caliber.
Was it the 50’s where we almost got a 7mm FAL for a battle rifle (awesome) but instead bullied NATO into a 308 and we did the M14? Swedes using the 6.5x55 for 100 years could have made a badass sniper in a bolt gun. Americans seem to just keep missing out on that sweet spot between 6mm-7mm until recently, at least with our military stuff.
Was it the 50’s where we almost got a 7mm FAL for a battle rifle (awesome) but instead bullied NATO into a 308 and we did the M14? Swedes using the 6.5x55 for 100 years could have made a badass sniper in a bolt gun. Americans seem to just keep missing out on that sweet spot between 6mm-7mm until recently, at least with our military stuff.
Yeah, that's pretty much the whole story. Apparently, we had a man in charge of the Bureau of Ordnance who wanted to leave his mark on the world... That's why he pushed for the .308 (a massaged .300 Sav case) because .30 cal had so much more killing power, blah, blah, blah. Anyhow, for all his pushing the .308/7.62 he's barely even known for who he is and what he did.
Two versions of the 7mm stick out in my mind. The 7mm Liviano that the Venezuelans used and the .280 British shooting a 6mm shorter version of the 7mm to acceptable levels. The Brits even changed the base/rim size to match current U.S. wishes from .450" to .473" (.280/30). Funny thing to that is .473" Why that? It's 12mm, that's why. Mauser had that going in the late 1880's and it's never changed. It's not like us Americans invented it. But, there's a lot of people that believe that.
I hear you.I liked what you said because it's true. Not because I like the fact. It's not a fact I like.
6mm ARC isn’t SOCOM, from what I understand. You’d see SOCOM solicitations for it if it was. It’s a "DoD entity".
When I started seeing what even a 16” 6.5 Grendel would do at distance, I felt cheated all those years having to mess with the M24 SWS and anything 7.62 NATO really.
I built up a Lilja-barreled Wasp profile, lightweight Grendel with about an 18” barrel to see if I could get consistent performance with it at distance while still having a lightweight rifle. It worked as envisioned. I ordered the barrel with our first Lilja group buy in 2013, started working with the set-up in 2014 with all my precision rifle with that rifle almost exclusively for 3 years to get a feel for it.
It’s a legitimate rifle that you can perform rifleman work with, then exceed the hit probability of many .308s, especially as you push out past 800yds, with half the recoil and more magazine capacity.
One of the first things people did with it was neck it down to 6mm, making what is called 6mm AR. Recoil on those is like 5.56 really, and a lot flatter. I said for years that the moment someone SAAMIs a 6mm Grendel, they’ll have the ideal TGT/varmint cartridge for the AR-15 that 6mm AR wildcat shooters already have been realizing for the past 16 years.
As for vintage sniper systems, I would have to say the SVD and Colt 656. If you can’t fight, quickly displace with the rifle and set into another position, the heavy TGT-type rifles will often get you fixed and various types of bigger return fire will ensue. The Russians were intimately familiar with this response, and they liked the SVT-40’s lightweight and 10rd capacity. They wanted some more robustness to the action and optics mounting, with a practical optic and reticle.
Last edited:
@LRRPF52, you’re probably right, in fact if memory serves that’s exactly how Hornady and 3rd parties have not-so-casually mentioned it. I probably substituted SOCOM because they always seem to get to play with stuff that never ends up getting adopted by a major branch. I didn’t realize they’re required to do a solicitation to try or field stuff though.
I just shot and zeroed my new 6mm ARC today as it so happens. Frankly I was surprised by how much recoil it had with a 16” barrel and just a flash hider. Not bad but I’ve become spoiled by my 20+ lb 6mm GT comp setup.
I was pretty pleased with performance though, went 3/3 at 550 yds right off the bat on 2 moa steel in 15 mph winds. Custom curve in my kestrel was .1 or .2 mils low at that distance, will tweak it once I get the gas set right.
I think it will be a very sweet DMR/SPR rifle for fun. Weak points are lack of reliable 6.5 G mags and the weaker bolt head from what I have seen.
3.8 mils elevation to get to 550 yds in a DA of 6000ish today, did pretty well in the wind. That 108 ELD is impressive, I’m only getting 2550 fps from my 16” barrel and it still did well today with decent energy on the steel. For reference, my 6mm GT with Berger 109’s was 2.7 mils elevation today at the same distance.
To your point though, this type of rifle would be very good in the shoot and displace situation I think. Light, small frame AR with 1000 yd capability and decent killing energy for most of that. It will be really nice suppressed and properly gassed. If you could get it really reliable it really would be a big step up from even the MK 12 with BH 77 gr stuff I think. Might make those bogey men in the hills with belt-fed 54R’s think twice about raining Russian surplus on our boys down in the valley. Then again our boys have more effective ways of dealing with that than small arms fire usually, lol.
I just shot and zeroed my new 6mm ARC today as it so happens. Frankly I was surprised by how much recoil it had with a 16” barrel and just a flash hider. Not bad but I’ve become spoiled by my 20+ lb 6mm GT comp setup.
I was pretty pleased with performance though, went 3/3 at 550 yds right off the bat on 2 moa steel in 15 mph winds. Custom curve in my kestrel was .1 or .2 mils low at that distance, will tweak it once I get the gas set right.
I think it will be a very sweet DMR/SPR rifle for fun. Weak points are lack of reliable 6.5 G mags and the weaker bolt head from what I have seen.
3.8 mils elevation to get to 550 yds in a DA of 6000ish today, did pretty well in the wind. That 108 ELD is impressive, I’m only getting 2550 fps from my 16” barrel and it still did well today with decent energy on the steel. For reference, my 6mm GT with Berger 109’s was 2.7 mils elevation today at the same distance.
To your point though, this type of rifle would be very good in the shoot and displace situation I think. Light, small frame AR with 1000 yd capability and decent killing energy for most of that. It will be really nice suppressed and properly gassed. If you could get it really reliable it really would be a big step up from even the MK 12 with BH 77 gr stuff I think. Might make those bogey men in the hills with belt-fed 54R’s think twice about raining Russian surplus on our boys down in the valley. Then again our boys have more effective ways of dealing with that than small arms fire usually, lol.
Last edited:
I didn’t verify any of this specifically as far as the history but it sounds close to what I have read elsewhere. Supposedly Douglas McArthur was the one who over-ruled the multi-million dollar R&D project on the 7mm Pedersen Garand for a 30/06 in the 1930’s since we had so much left over ammo in warehouses and it was the depression. Still short sighted and in the 1950’s was downright stupid when we did it again and screwed over our allies.
A 6.5 or 7mm intermediate FAL would have been the shit, if it could have approached 1 moa with specialty ammo and a way to mount an optic we might have gotten a phenomenal DMR/SASS 60-70 years ago.
abesguncave.com
A 6.5 or 7mm intermediate FAL would have been the shit, if it could have approached 1 moa with specialty ammo and a way to mount an optic we might have gotten a phenomenal DMR/SASS 60-70 years ago.
Why the .308 Sucks - And the Military Knew It - Abe's Gun Cave
the 308 is one of my least favorite cartridges. Give me a few minutes, and I'll explain why the Military KNEW the .308 was NOT a good cartridge when...
abesguncave.com
MacArthur was the one who killed it. In that article, while pretty much correct, didn't mention the open ballistics tests of the 1920's. The Bureau of Ordnance, using the Army as their testbed, tested every cartridge out there. They came to the conclusion that the .250-3000 was the best round that met all the criteria. Other cartridges met the criteria, but scored lower in some of the criteria. That idea got dumped as well, but before MacArthur. In case you are wondering, think of the .25 cal. (.257") as a slightly smaller 6.5mm. There's only .007" difference between .25 cal and 6.5mm. In the end, they selected the .300 Savage to work with (T65)I didn’t verify any of this specifically as far as the history but it sounds close to what I have read elsewhere. Supposedly Douglas McArthur was the one who over-ruled the multi-million dollar R&D project on the 7mm Pedersen Garand for a 30/06 in the 1930’s since we had so much left over ammo in warehouses and it was the depression. Still short sighted and in the 1950’s was downright stupid when we did it again and screwed over our allies.
A 6.5 or 7mm intermediate FAL would have been the shit, if it could have approached 1 moa with specialty ammo and a way to mount an optic we might have gotten a phenomenal DMR/SASS 60-70 years ago.
Why the .308 Sucks - And the Military Knew It - Abe's Gun Cave
the 308 is one of my least favorite cartridges. Give me a few minutes, and I'll explain why the Military KNEW the .308 was NOT a good cartridge when...
FWIW, an aside to what the article speaks of, the .276 Pederson was an 11.5 mm base/rim (.450") compared to a 12mm base/rim (.472") of the 30-06 and .308. The 2550 fps the article speaks of was a pretty mild load for it. That was so the rifle would function without issue and not create excess wear and tear. Not just the barrel, but the action as well. The action had to be beefed up considerably to handle the .30-06.
The original British .280 started with the 11.5mm rim/base. Then, to hopefully appease us Americans, they widened the base out to 12mm and kept the same taper (.280/30), giving it a little more juice. I agree with the article in saying the .280 would have been the best answer. But, that didn't happen.
Also, while many just consider the 5.56 a "suppression by fire" tool, the original iteration was the deadliest cartridge we ever fielded. The combination of a 1-14" twist and the 55 gr. bullet (M193) did make the bullet go radically unstable (all bullets do that eventually) much sooner than more stable bullets. It was NOT designed to go unstable so fast, the ideas taken were from benchrest shooter, Mike Walker (Remington). It was for accuracy. The 62 gr. bullet (M855) in a 1-7" twist has the terminal ballistics of an ice pick in comparison. Center mass shots, which the system is quite capable of, is the only way to make kills. 77 gr. bullets (Mk262) has much better terminal ballistics.
Last edited:
Interesting history @sandwarrior. Ironically now the .25 cal “quarter bore” is making a comeback in the long range world if not the military one.
Ever since mk262 was fielded I’ve been hearing how it has better terminal effects than “green tip”. It does well in SBR’s too.
Ever since mk262 was fielded I’ve been hearing how it has better terminal effects than “green tip”. It does well in SBR’s too.
The military should stretch out the grendel case body another 10th of an inch, use those 25 cal .7BC blackjacks at a longer OACL, then build a rifle around it!
I didn't say it right. The 55 FMJ became radically unstable (tumbles and fragments at the cannelure) sooner. Stability of the bullet has a LOT to do with terminal ballistics. The 77 gr. has more length for the rotational energy to mess with. It doesn't go radically unstable like the 55 but as it becomes unstable it has a lot more length to create the wound channel. It becomes unstable faster than the 62 gr. or 55 in a 1-7" twist.
A 55 gr. FMJ in a 1-7" twist has much the same characteristics of the 62. Too stable as it meets flesh. Bone will make 55's and 62's do their nasty dance and begin the destruction.
Contrary to what many believe the 5.56 is NOT just a mouse round. With the right bullets it is a killing machine. Light, so a lot more ammo, and easy to shoot make more hits. Hits are what kills not big energy (that bleeds off in .30 cal bullets). You can get a lot of hits with an AR-15/M-16.
FWIW, I was one of those people who waffled back and forth on it when I was a young Ranger. After studying and understanding terminal ballistics, I see now the excellent combination of hitting power and light accurate rifle.
Last edited:
I really like the .250 Savage cartridge. It would be interesting with the 131gr VLD bullets for a Sniper/DM/LMG cartridge from a small action.
Same with 6.5 Carcano.
The Grendel/PPC base diameter with longer case length necked to .257” with 131gr ACE would be about ideal at 2.500” COL.
Same with 6.5 Carcano.
The Grendel/PPC base diameter with longer case length necked to .257” with 131gr ACE would be about ideal at 2.500” COL.
Regarding 6.5mm cartridges, didn't SOCOM start ordering new uppers for the KAC M110 but in 6.5 CM for SOCOM use a year ago (aka M110K1)?
...and this late 2019 procurement item outlined the new purchase of 6.5 Creedmoor uppers for legacy M110s/Mk 11s (not sure how many though)...
www.thefirearmblog.com
....I'm sure that is a pricey rifle, but I wouldn't mind having one if I could...
USSOCOM Adopts 6.5 Creedmoor | Soldier Systems Daily
Last Spring, USSOCOM undertook a study of 6.5 family cartridges to determine a path forward for Precision Intermediate Caliber Ammunition. Over the last yea ...
soldiersystems.net
...and this late 2019 procurement item outlined the new purchase of 6.5 Creedmoor uppers for legacy M110s/Mk 11s (not sure how many though)...
Naval Surface Warfare Center looking to buy M110K1 6.5CM Upper Receivers from Knight's Armament Co
Knights Armament Company has offered to the Government an improved, capability upgrade to the upper receiver assembly for the M110K1 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS). The new upper receiver is 6.5mm Creedmoor (versus 7.62mm, CLIN 0001 on current contract) and provides longer distance shots...
www.thefirearmblog.com
....I'm sure that is a pricey rifle, but I wouldn't mind having one if I could...
Yes, they did. The problem with the whole ballistics in the military is just like that guys article. We do all this research and some general goes, "I know better than you and your research." So, all this stuff gets tested, turned down, rinse, repeat, send to warehouse. The trials last year also included 6mm ARC and 6.8mm. They threw that back in the mix. Somehow or other, it's been said (read leaked) that Grendel case cartridges break AR's. But, same capacity 6.8's don't. Thus the downsize for 6mm ARC and .224V.Regarding 6.5mm cartridges, didn't SOCOM start ordering new uppers for the KAC M110 but in 6.5 CM for SOCOM use a year ago (aka M110K1)?
USSOCOM Adopts 6.5 Creedmoor | Soldier Systems Daily
Last Spring, USSOCOM undertook a study of 6.5 family cartridges to determine a path forward for Precision Intermediate Caliber Ammunition. Over the last yea ...soldiersystems.net
...and this late 2019 procurement item outlined the new purchase of 6.5 Creedmoor uppers for legacy M110s/Mk 11s (not sure how many though)...
Naval Surface Warfare Center looking to buy M110K1 6.5CM Upper Receivers from Knight's Armament Co
Knights Armament Company has offered to the Government an improved, capability upgrade to the upper receiver assembly for the M110K1 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS). The new upper receiver is 6.5mm Creedmoor (versus 7.62mm, CLIN 0001 on current contract) and provides longer distance shots...
....I'm sure that is a pricey rifle, but I wouldn't mind having one if I could...
Every time, you'll get people not involved in the testing with input. The criteria is set to mimick Mk262, then for some reason or another, it's 'not enough improvement' for what little they would spend to change it, "Because Mk262 can already do that." Limiting the test rounds so they won't exceed what you already have. I've seen way too much of this over the last 17 years. But, go ahead and spend $1.5B on bullet box research. The real wrencher is then Mk262 doesn't get issued.
Love the rifle you show BTW!
Last edited:
There are multiple tracks of weapons procurement and development for different organizations.
US Army has attempted to develop so many different rifles over the last 40 years, with ACR, XM8, LSAT, 7.62 NATO ICSR, and now NGSW.
SOCOM adopted the M4A1 starting around 1994, which has evolved with the Block upgrades. Once they were told they couldn’t have the LMT enhanced BCG for suppressed use, they launched a separate weapons system program from SCAR that evolved into the FN Light and Heavy contracts.
JSOC had the Hk416 made for them. Has their own different chamberings for SR-25 uppers. Does no-BS assessments and requisitions without interference from come-and-go contract officers and NCOs typical of big Army and even SOCOM.
SOCOM saw the success of that, then solicited for the Sniper Support Rifle in 6.5CM, a semi-auto, as well as the Assault Machine Gun.
SOCOM went through all kinds of Chinese fire drills with the PSR/MSR/ASR bolt-action magnum sniper systems. All of our allies quickly realized that 7.62 NATO bolt guns were basically a waste, ineffective engagement distances for the platform, and stepped up to .338LM. US Army SF and Marines wanted .338 LM. SEALs said, “You can hot-rod .300 Win Mag and get the same ballistics!" Throat won’t last more than 100 rounds, but who cares? It’s not like you’ll ever run these rifles through courses where we shoot every day for 2 weeks or more.
Big Army with clueless contract and proponent officers: “.300 Win Mag? Sounds cool! Let’s do that! What’s that? You can make it perform like .338? We’ll order 2,558 of them! Oh, and we want that Mk 248 Mod 1 ammo too that pushes pressures into way over 65,000psi, causes primers to fail, and torches the throats on the rifles for sport! Our contract officers know nothing about the details of these things, but we heard it extends the effective range of .300 Win Mag, so we need it!"
There are multiple tracks from several organizations and none of them are on the same sheet of music with themselves, with one exception.
Everything is mostly over-diversification with all the money flowing and organizational attention-deficit disorder, handed to proponency and acquisition people who will maybe be in their relevant assignment for a maximum of 2 years (including PCS leave, Federal holidays, etc.), before they move on to something totally unrelated. They’ll spend their first year....”What is a sniper system/service rifle/LMG/optic/cartridge supposed to be?” Then the next year will be them pimping whatever the decision was. Depending on whether it catches on or not, they’ll hand-off their work to the next officer, who will go through the same process, try to make their mark.....wash, rinse, repeat.
You end up with some systems that were developed decades ago that are still cutting-edge today, but barely saw the light of day. Then many of the things that get adopted offer no real new advantages, or marginal ones at best, but are advertised as the latest and greatest things ever.
Look at how much money and fanfare went into adopting a new service sidearm, for example, while we’re still using M249 SAWs instead of a constant-recoil operating principle LMG chambered in 6/6.35/6.5mm.
Then look at the M110A1 for big Army. It’s a pig that you can’t shoot/move with very well. Good luck on clearing the close space, and good luck on building a hasty position while supporting your Squad.
Meanwhile “a DoD entity” looks at all these shenanigans and orders x number of lightweight AR-15 framed rifles chambered in a high performance intermediate 6mm cartridge, that has better hit probability than .308 bolt guns and large-frame SASS rifles, with more supersonic reach, while handling better than an M16A2 in the close fight. Costs exponentially less to acquire, works better than anything that has been adopted in decades, with lower working pressure on top of all that.
US Army has attempted to develop so many different rifles over the last 40 years, with ACR, XM8, LSAT, 7.62 NATO ICSR, and now NGSW.
SOCOM adopted the M4A1 starting around 1994, which has evolved with the Block upgrades. Once they were told they couldn’t have the LMT enhanced BCG for suppressed use, they launched a separate weapons system program from SCAR that evolved into the FN Light and Heavy contracts.
JSOC had the Hk416 made for them. Has their own different chamberings for SR-25 uppers. Does no-BS assessments and requisitions without interference from come-and-go contract officers and NCOs typical of big Army and even SOCOM.
SOCOM saw the success of that, then solicited for the Sniper Support Rifle in 6.5CM, a semi-auto, as well as the Assault Machine Gun.
SOCOM went through all kinds of Chinese fire drills with the PSR/MSR/ASR bolt-action magnum sniper systems. All of our allies quickly realized that 7.62 NATO bolt guns were basically a waste, ineffective engagement distances for the platform, and stepped up to .338LM. US Army SF and Marines wanted .338 LM. SEALs said, “You can hot-rod .300 Win Mag and get the same ballistics!" Throat won’t last more than 100 rounds, but who cares? It’s not like you’ll ever run these rifles through courses where we shoot every day for 2 weeks or more.
Big Army with clueless contract and proponent officers: “.300 Win Mag? Sounds cool! Let’s do that! What’s that? You can make it perform like .338? We’ll order 2,558 of them! Oh, and we want that Mk 248 Mod 1 ammo too that pushes pressures into way over 65,000psi, causes primers to fail, and torches the throats on the rifles for sport! Our contract officers know nothing about the details of these things, but we heard it extends the effective range of .300 Win Mag, so we need it!"
There are multiple tracks from several organizations and none of them are on the same sheet of music with themselves, with one exception.
Everything is mostly over-diversification with all the money flowing and organizational attention-deficit disorder, handed to proponency and acquisition people who will maybe be in their relevant assignment for a maximum of 2 years (including PCS leave, Federal holidays, etc.), before they move on to something totally unrelated. They’ll spend their first year....”What is a sniper system/service rifle/LMG/optic/cartridge supposed to be?” Then the next year will be them pimping whatever the decision was. Depending on whether it catches on or not, they’ll hand-off their work to the next officer, who will go through the same process, try to make their mark.....wash, rinse, repeat.
You end up with some systems that were developed decades ago that are still cutting-edge today, but barely saw the light of day. Then many of the things that get adopted offer no real new advantages, or marginal ones at best, but are advertised as the latest and greatest things ever.
Look at how much money and fanfare went into adopting a new service sidearm, for example, while we’re still using M249 SAWs instead of a constant-recoil operating principle LMG chambered in 6/6.35/6.5mm.
Then look at the M110A1 for big Army. It’s a pig that you can’t shoot/move with very well. Good luck on clearing the close space, and good luck on building a hasty position while supporting your Squad.
Meanwhile “a DoD entity” looks at all these shenanigans and orders x number of lightweight AR-15 framed rifles chambered in a high performance intermediate 6mm cartridge, that has better hit probability than .308 bolt guns and large-frame SASS rifles, with more supersonic reach, while handling better than an M16A2 in the close fight. Costs exponentially less to acquire, works better than anything that has been adopted in decades, with lower working pressure on top of all that.
The bottom line for me is who the fuck, specifically, is standing in the way of progress?
Bureaucracy. Army ordinance dept has been that way since the Civil War when they turned down repeating arms because they didn’t want to stock too many cartridges... and Gatling Guns because they wasted ammo.
The amazing thing is that when the Springfield Armory was started in 1777, while the Revolutionary War was still being fought, they were at the bleeding edge of technology. Eli Whitney did not invent standardized parts, the SA did!
By 1850 the Ordnance Board and the entrenched forces at SA were utterly ossified.
No different in UK, though. Most established armies are very conservative. Officers who will take incredible risks on a battlefield are timid as mice in the bureaucracy and the hierarchy, lest they not make the next step up that ziggurat. And the nail that stands proud is the first to get pounded down — Japanese proverb.
Inhave a good book in the American System of Manufacture that goes into a lot of it. Great read!
Sirhr
Similar threads
