Lets argue about the M24

[Zigjib]

I've been doing a mountain of investigation on the M24s and I can't find conclusive information on why the M24 has the Long Action receiver with a short action cartridge. So we might as well all argue about it!

In the blue corner;
The Long Action receiver is because the Army wanted a 300 Win Mag.

In the red corner;
The Long Action receiver is because the Army's standard sniper ammunition at the start of the project was the M72 30-06 ammunition which would have necessitated the long act receiver.

If anyone has any information supporting either stance, i'd love to hear it.

Thanks

Carso

 

[USMCSGT0331]

In the green corner;
The government has no idea what it actually wants or needs

 

[Jrb572]

Did they ever get issued in 300 win mag

 

[1588]

I only have information I picked up during conversations with Veterans. I am certainly no expert.

I was told that the long action was selected, so the bolts and barrels could be changed to make the rifles shoot .300 Winchester Magnum cartridges. The same people told me the rifles could be easily converted back and forth between calibers to accommodate the needs for a particular theater of operation.

This information was obtained after several beers, so it will need to be verified.

 

[Skunk]

Size matters.

 

[Mister Ridge]

All I have is a magazine article from years back. SF wanted .300WM. Big Army wanted 7.62x51mm.

I'm inclined to disregard the .30-06 argument given that the M24 came along after the M21.

 

[lonegunman762x51]

Somewhere I have a technical spec for it from the mid-1980's. 30-06 M72 match was the original intention, the option for 300 Win Mag was also noted. While they may have had an M21, the military had/has a huge amount of M72 match ball. We had it issued to use for competitive shooting until the 2000's. We swapped Garands from 30 cal match to 7.62 and then turned them in altogether in the 2000's.

"As an interesting side note, the M24 SWS had carried the long-action receiver because it was originally to use the .30-06 M72 Match cartridge. It turned out there was an insufficient quantity of M72 Match rounds in a single lot of manufacture, so the operational requirement changed to use the dimensionally smaller 7.62x51mm NATO M118 Match ammo."

Remington 700 SWS M24 Sniper Rifle - 1988 Timeline - RifleShooter

Remington Model 700 SWS (Sniper Weapons System) sniper rifles were developed in 1986 at the request of the U.S. Government. Only 45 days after receiving the request, Remington submitted a test sample, which was accepted and resulted in a contract awarded in 1987 as the M24 Sniper Rifle.

www.rifleshootermag.com

 

[Zigjib]

In the green corner;
The government has no idea what it actually wants or needs

lol! there's always a variable

 

[Zigjib]

Did they ever get issued in 300 win mag

Yes, some rifles were changed to 300 Win Mag as trial rifles in the MEO pre-m2010. They also trialled M24A2 which I believe was 300 Win Mag but can't confirm

 

[Zigjib]

Somewhere I have a technical spec for it from the mid-1980's. 30-06 M72 match was the original intention, the option for 300 Win Mag was also noted. While they may have had an M21, the military had/has a huge amount of M72 match ball. We had it issued to use for competitive shooting until the 2000's. We swapped Garands from 30 cal match to 7.62 and then turned them in altogether in the 2000's.

"As an interesting side note, the M24 SWS had carried the long-action receiver because it was originally to use the .30-06 M72 Match cartridge. It turned out there was an insufficient quantity of M72 Match rounds in a single lot of manufacture, so the operational requirement changed to use the dimensionally smaller 7.62x51mm NATO M118 Match ammo."

Remington 700 SWS M24 Sniper Rifle - 1988 Timeline - RifleShooter

Remington Model 700 SWS (Sniper Weapons System) sniper rifles were developed in 1986 at the request of the U.S. Government. Only 45 days after receiving the request, Remington submitted a test sample, which was accepted and resulted in a contract awarded in 1987 as the M24 Sniper Rifle.

www.rifleshootermag.com

Well that's some pretty strong evidence for the M72

 

[DFOOSKING]

I think it was Marty over at Badger that posted here, said he did a super rare conversion of one M24 rifle to 7mm mag for one conventional unit. He kept the documentation to protect himself as it was highly odd job to do...modifying government property.

Imagine how valuable it would be if it still exists...

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Door number 3... Remington had a ton of long actions lying around and nothing to do with them... and gave Army a great deal.

Not saying it happened. Just saying... it Could have happened.

Sirhr

 

[Random Guy]

In the blue corner;
The Long Action receiver is because the Army wanted a 300 Win Mag.

If anyone has any information supporting either stance, i'd love to hear it.

The blue corner is correct. The old 30-06 M72 match ammo was not relevant to US Army in the late 1980s. (I think the last batch of M72 match ammo that Lake City made was in 1968...and it was clearly long obsolete by the 1980s). On the other hand, there was already some interest in the 300 Win Mag as a potential sniper cartridge in the late 1980s, at least within Crane (aka SOCOM). Anyhow, here's the final report prepared in 1988 by John Rogers, a Senior Marketing Specialist for Remington Arms Company, Inc., following the award of the contract for the SWS Model 24 Sniper Rifle:

"...Remington first became interested in the (US Army's new) sniper weapon system when we received a copy of the market investigation in April 1986. Having previously supplied the M40 to the U.S. Marine Corps, we felt we were in a good position to respond to this requirement. Using the market investigation questionnaire as a guideline, Remington formed an SWS Team and came up with a Plan of Action. The principle designer at Remington was Fred E. Martin T.C. Douglas was assigned as superintendent of the SWS team which eventually consisted of fourteen Remington employees.

The Team defined seven major items for consideration: the rifle action, the stock, the scope, a carrying case for the system, iron sights, ammunition, and a potential retrofit to .300 Win Mag. The caliber retrofit requirement and the need for accuracy led us to a long-action bolt gun. We felt the gun should have a synthetic stock, preferably made of Kevlar..."
***

Translation: The April 1986 US Army Request for Information (RFI) or perhaps a Request for Proposal (RFP), which is referred to as the 'market investigation questionnaire,' must have included the US Army's 'caliber retrofit requirement' for a potential 'retrofit' to 300 Win Mag. The fact that Remington's 1988 report refers to this as a "requirement" means the US Army had specified this in the original 1986 RFI/RFP. So a long action was required from Remington's perspective from the get-go - if they were to use their M700 action. Note, at the time the 300 Win Mag was already used for long-range/1000 yard competitions that military teams (AMU, Navy, etc) were competing in, but the 300 WinMag was not yet approved for combat use. That decision was reportedly made on November 23, 1993, resulting in the adoption of MK 248 Mod 0. (The below link discusses the key legal decision re Sierra's Open Tip Match bullet that was later used in the M118LR and Mk 248 Mod 0)

My reading is US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) at Crane was interested in a longer-range sniper rifle by the mid-to-late 1980s, and they had started down that road w/ the 300 WinMag at the same time Big Army's M24 RFI was released. Crane/SOCOM formally adopted the 300 Win Mag in 1994-95 with the "M700/300" sniper rifles, and eventually Big Army followed SOCOM's lead 15 years later with the M24 to XM2010 conversions circa 2010-11ish.

Fwiw, here's a good history of the 300 Win Mag and the US military/SOCOM's involvement going back to the 1980s:

An Official Journal Of The NRA | Unsung Hero: The Mk 248 MOD 1

The .300 Win. Mag. cartridge was a veritable game-changer in the military sniping community—especially in its latest incarnation, the Mk 248 MOD 1. Here’s how it was developed and what handloaders can learn from it.

www.americanrifleman.org

"According to “The Development of the Navy .300 Winchester Magnum Cartridge Configuration Naval Surface Warfare Center-Crane (NWSC)” document, “Throughout the 1980s the Navy focused on improving weapons and ammunition for match competition and sniper use. In the late 1980s the focus was turned to the .300 Winchester Magnum (.300 Win Mag) cartridge. This was because the .300 Win Mag was (1) commercially produced in economic quantities; (2) commercial weapons could be easily modified for use in a military environment; and (3) the cartridge was proven in long-range match competition. The two users of this cartridge in the Navy were to be the Match Competition Team and Naval Special Warfare Forces.”

One more piece of definitive history: Here's the XM24 prototype on display in the NRA museum with its stainless steel 300 WinMag barrel. It was formerly owned by a retired USMC officer in VA who was a consultant to Remington at that time. This was the original XM24 prototype chambered in 300 WinMag. The US Army of course went with 7.62x51mm circa 1988...until 2010 when the original "caliber retrofit" requirement was finally executed with the XM2010 program.

Remington XM24 Sniper rifle Prototype

Obituary of the original owner of that XM24 prototype rifle as seen in the NRA museum:

Wincentsen M. Obituary (2018) - Stafford, VA - The Free Lance - Star

View Wincentsen Bruce M.'s obituary, send flowers and sign the guestbook.

www.legacy.com

 

[brianf]

funny part is that this discussion has been going on for decades and for all the shortcomings of short action cartridges in a long action, no DBM etc

the m24 system has put more than a few bad guys on the ground

 

[Random Guy]

There is no question the M24 was a robust and effective sniper rifle for over two decades and several conflicts - in fact several foreign militaries are still using it (IDF for example). There is at least one documented case where a US Army sniper took a chance with his hold-over references and engaged an enemy in Iraq at a range that is far more appropriate for the 300 WinMag:

That said, the US Army wanted to extend the M24's effective range well beyond the typical 900 meter range of the 7.62x51mm (M118LR), hence the M2010 program and development of the Mk 248 Mod 1 ammo. So the old M24s were shipped back to Remington and re-built into a suppressed weapon w/ a 1500 yard effective range...and this metamorphosis was only possible b/c the US Army specified a "caliber retrofit requirement" for 300 WinMag way back in April 1986...

 

[sandwarrior]

Here's the problem. You have non-scientific/non shooting people making scientific and shooting decisions in the Army (military for that matter). You get a rifle built around a long action cartridge, then stuff a short cartridge in it. You get a bunch of fails. The short cartridges slide back and forth, then take a nose dive in the magazine and jam. Nevermind you could have had the rifle built with a magazine that would hold short action cartridges, i.e. M14 mags. which would have enhanced the bolt action rifles firepower. Big Army wanted 7.62 cuz that is a standard cartridge of NATO and big Army. At the time, Big Army had no concept of long range precision shooting. They felt that if an M60 can get a bullet out there, so should an M24. It does, but not the precision they were hoping for.
SF and Spec Ops thought more power was the answer, thus the long action in hopes of it being produced in 7.62x68 aka .300WM. Which will reach farther out, but not as well as a rifle designed around an aerodynamic projectile. Long after the Navy adopted the 7.62x68 using A191 ammo, they finally figured out you need a better aerodynamic projectile. Along came a bunch of better projectiles in the form of Hornady 208's, 225's and Berger 210's and 230's. Then when the conversion happened in the form of the M2010, they gave it the Sierra 220 gr. Which is nowhere near as good as the previously mentioned. They even dumped Sierra's 210 gr. Which is still a better bullet.

Again, non-scientific/non-shooting people making shooting decisions based on lack of knowledge of science.

 

[1588]

Here's the problem. You have non-scientific/non shooting people making scientific and shooting decisions in the Army (military for that matter). You get a rifle built around a long action cartridge, then stuff a short cartridge in it. You get a bunch of fails. The short cartridges slide back and forth, then take a nose dive in the magazine and jam. Nevermind you could have had the rifle built with a magazine that would hold short action cartridges, i.e. M14 mags. which would have enhanced the bolt action rifles firepower. Big Army wanted 7.62 cuz that is a standard cartridge of NATO and big Army. At the time, Big Army had no concept of long range precision shooting. They felt that if an M60 can get a bullet out there, so should an M24. It does, but not the precision they were hoping for.
SF and Spec Ops thought more power was the answer, thus the long action in hopes of it being produced in 7.62x68 aka .300WM. Which will reach farther out, but not as well as a rifle designed around an aerodynamic projectile. Long after the Navy adopted the 7.62x68 using A191 ammo, they finally figured out you need a better aerodynamic projectile. Along came a bunch of better projectiles in the form of Hornady 208's, 225's and Berger 210's and 230's. Then when the conversion happened in the form of the M2010, they gave it the Sierra 220 gr. Which is nowhere nears as good as the previously mentioned. They even dumped Sierra's 210 gr. Which is still a better bullet.

Again, non-scientific/non-shooting people making shooting decisions based on lack of knowledge of science.

If I were designing a long action rifle to shoot a short action cartridge, I would fabricate and install a spacer similar to that used in the M1 Garand that shoots 7.62x51mm ammunition. A shortened follower and spring would be easy to fabricate to accommodate the use of the spacer. When converting the weapon to a long action cartridge, the spacer could be removed and suitable follower and spring installed. It's possible that a short action spacer and spring, i.e. 308 Winchester parts, would work if the spacer was designed to accommodate them.

The spacer I would design would be positioned rearward closer to the bolt face, not the chamber like on the M1 Garand.

 

[sandwarrior]

If I were designing a long action rifle to shoot a short action cartridge, I would fabricate and install a spacer similar to that used in the M1 Garand that shoots 7.62x51mm ammunition. A shortened follower and spring would be easy to fabricate to accommodate the use of the spacer. When converting the weapon to a long action cartridge, the spacer could be removed and suitable follower and spring installed. It's possible that a short action spacer and spring, i.e. 308 Winchester parts, would work if the spacer was designed to accommodate them.

The spacer I would design would be positioned rearward closer to the bolt face, not the chamber like on the M1 Garand.

But they didn't...

 

[Random Guy]

Then when the conversion happened in the form of the M2010, they gave it the Sierra 220 gr. Which is nowhere nears as good as the previously mentioned. They even dumped Sierra's 210 gr. Which is still a better bullet.

Again, non-scientific/non-shooting people making shooting decisions based on lack of knowledge of science.

I respectfully disagree that the ballistics engineers at Crane are "non-scientific/non-shooters." Based on my observations and communications with them, that is simply not true. They care about the warriors that they serve, and big money is spent on relatively low-volume items to give SOCOM and other elite soldiers the best equipment that meets the requirements after much empirical testing - esp ammunition. They even do empirical testing on the flash and burn characteristics of primers alone(!). See slide 7 of the below PPT. NO ONE else does that kind of empirical testing, aside from high-tech ballistics laboratories.

Please see slides 12-14 re the Mk 248 Mod 1 - the 220 grain bullet was empirically superior to the 210 bullet out to the 1000 yard testing (ie, “less sensitive”). My understanding is that back in 2009 hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to develop what is arguably the highest performance 7.62x51mm (Mk 316 Mod 0) and 7.62x68mm ammo (Mk 248 Mod 1) - of any military in the world. Here's some info that pretty much negates the notion of "non-scientific/non-shooter people making shooting decisions." Have you met any of those talented engineers/ hardcore shooters at Crane? The two employees I knew there have mechanical engineering degrees and were pretty hardcore shooters in both their professional career and their personal lives. Just say'n.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2009/infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf

(Note: Some of the heavy 308 WinMag bullets you mentioned might have come out after 2008/9, but in 2009 they reportedly selected the best bullet available at the time based on scientific testing that only an entity like Crane/SOCOM undertakes).

 

[lonegunman762x51]

"One of the more contentious issues of M24 lore involves Remington’s choice of the long action for the firearm. Although affordability is generally attributed to the Army retaining the 7.62mm NATO round as their primary sniping cartridge, less is known as to why they built in the capability to chamber a more powerful cartridge. Remington documents indicate that the Army solicitation called for the rifle to “be easily converted to a yet to be developed magnum cartridge.” Although there has been speculation that suggests the long action was intended to accommodate surplus quantities of 30-06 match rounds, it appears that is not the case. It also appears that the AMU was competing in 1000 yard matches during this period with the .300 Winchester Magnum round with great effect. Perhaps consequently, a Special Operations Letter Requirement for a Sniper Weapons System dated 1982 mandated that their system must accommodate “calibers up to and including the .300 Winchester Magnum.” It is believed this requirement was used as a key reference document for the Army’s M24 solicitation. Regardless of the origin of the magnum cartridge requirement, to meet it the Remington team selected their long action design despite the 7.62mm round being more suited to a short action length. To maximize feeding reliability in this situation, Army snipers were trained to load their rounds with the base of the short cartridges touching the rear of the internal magazine. Ultimately, the choice of the long action firing 7.62mm NATO rounds was never problematic, although it would take over 23 years before the Army would actually utilize the full potential of the action length."

Remington Military Rebuilding/Refurbishing U.S. Military Sniper-Used M24 Sniper Weapon System Sniper Rifles for Non-Military/Commercial Sale. Very Interesting.

By David Crane defrev (at) gmail (dot) com January 5, 2012 Last updated on 1/07/12. DefenseReview (DR) has received the following article-format history on the Remington M24 Sniper Weapon System sniper rifle, the XM2010 sniper rifle program, and the Remington M24 Commercial...

defensereview.com

The one true constant is that the Army had no idea where it would end up. 30-06, 300WM, 7.62 match were on the table. They did want the rifle to be capable of adapting to 300 Winchester Magnum at some point, this made a long action a requirement.

 

[sandwarrior]

I respectfully disagree that the ballistics engineers at Crane are "non-scientific/non-shooters." Based on my observations and communications with them, that is simply not true. They care about the warriors that they serve, and big money is spent on relatively low-volume items to give SOCOM and other elite soldiers the best equipment that meets the requirements after much empirical testing - esp ammunition. They even do empirical testing on the flash and burn characteristics of primers alone(!). See slide 7 of the below PPT. NO ONE else does that kind of empirical testing, aside from high-tech ballistics laboratories.

Please see slides 12-14 re the Mk 248 Mod 1 - the 220 grain bullet was empirically superior to the 210 bullet out to the 1000 yard testing (ie, “less sensitive”). My understanding is that back in 2009 hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to develop what is arguably the highest performance 7.62x51mm (Mk 316 Mod 0) and 7.62x68mm ammo (Mk 248 Mod 1) - of any military in the world. Here's some info that pretty much negates the notion of "non-scientific/non-shooter people making shooting decisions." Have you met any of those talented engineers/ hardcore shooters at Crane? The two employees I knew there have mechanical engineering degrees and were pretty hardcore shooters in both their professional career and their personal lives. Just say'n.

https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2009/infantrysmallarms/tuesdaysessioniii8524.pdf

(Note: Some of the heavy 308 WinMag bullets you mentioned might have come out after 2008/9, but in 2009 they reportedly selected the best bullet available at the time based on scientific testing that only an entity like Crane/SOCOM undertakes).

Yep, talked to a few of them on the phone. One prominent name there, told me it was bullshit that people were consistently shooting to a mile. WRONG! Because myself and several shooters did it. It wasn't the brainiacs at Crane who found A191 wasn't remaining stable in cold weather. It was a team who was there doing some training. Who brought the targets in and showed the brainiacs that they didn't know what they were talking about. I know these guys care about the tools they send out to operators, but that doesn't mean they don't put their own arrogance first.
Look at what the civilian world is doing, and how the military isn't matching it on the same level. Neither of those combinations are 'kicking ass' out in the civilian world. Unless, as in the case of the Mk316 Mod 0, it gets it's own separate class of competition. It seems nobody on the military side can figure out the answer is bullet efficiency. I shoot as well or better than a lot of them with my 6mm Dasher, against 7.62x68's! I can also tell you, they don't hang that well with me without their suppressor/brake combinations. When those have to come off, the shooting goes downhill. Those are necessary to help manage recoil. And, at 300 yds. the suppressors almost don't matter. The snap of the supersonic bullet is louder than the sound of the disharge. Much louder than my 6mm.

I'll add this, IMO, there is/was nothing wrong with the M24 that couldn't have been cured by maximizing the capability of the rounds that it was supposed to use. The people on the military side did not.

 

[lockedandloaded]

Note, at the time the 300 Win Mag was already used for long-range/1000 yard competitions that military teams (AMU, Navy, etc) were competing in, but the 300 WinMag was not yet approved for combat use. That decision was reportedly made on November 23, 1993, resulting in the adoption of MK 248 Mod 0.


"According to “The Development of the Navy .300 Winchester Magnum Cartridge Configuration Naval Surface Warfare Center-Crane (NWSC)” document, “Throughout the 1980s the Navy focused on improving weapons and ammunition for match competition and sniper use. In the late 1980s the focus was turned to the .300 Winchester Magnum (.300 Win Mag) cartridge. This was because the .300 Win Mag was (1) commercially produced in economic quantities; (2) commercial weapons could be easily modified for use in a military environment; and (3) the cartridge was proven in long-range match competition. The two users of this cartridge in the Navy were to be the Match Competition Team and Naval Special Warfare Forces.”

These details support the possibility that a 700LA was required so it could be rechambered to compete in long-range match competition by USAMTU. The specification to include metallic iron sights capable of 1/4 MOA always seemed superfluous to the requirements of a sniper rifle, lets be honest. And also never heard of anyone carrying them along for the ride. I'm just throwing this out here for replies. Always been something I considered in the SA/LA debate. The logic behind it being a RFP couldn't include a requirement that adds expense for competition purposes, but could be hidden in the details for other reasons like the day optic going down.

 

[Random Guy]

The specification to include metallic iron sights capable of 1/4 MOA always seemed superfluous to the requirements of a sniper rifle, lets be honest. And also never heard of anyone carrying them along for the ride. I'm just throwing this out here for replies. Always been something I considered in the SA/LA debate. The logic behind it being a RFP couldn't include a requirement that adds expense for competition purposes, but could be hidden in the details for other reasons like the day optic going down.

From the Source:

M24 Sniper Weapons System
February 28, 2017
M24 Sniper Rifle – Details Matter
Author: Michael Haugen

IRON SIGHTS

The M24 iron sights were specified for a variety of reasons; operationally they were required in case the optics went down or (remember the cold war) if the enemy has optics detection equipment (yes it does exist). The other reason was so that the rifle could be used competitively by the AMU and others to shoot a variety of matches such as conventional high power and perhaps 1000 yard competition.

The actual requirement was as such;

The configuration of the iron sights shall consist of a front sight and a rear peep sight. The rear peep sight shall have a movable scale for zeroing purposes

The iron sights may have inserts for the front sight and rear peep sight. If the iron sights have inserts, they shall be replaceable by the operator without tools other than those contained in the deployment kit

The width of the front sight shall be such that it is the narrowest one offered by the contractor

The iron sights shall be adjustable for both elevation and azimuth in increments no greater than .5 moa increments. The adjustments shall be detended, audible and tactile clicks and be capable of being performed at ambient, hot (145 F ± 5F), cold (-50 F ± 5F) by a person dressed in cold weather environmental clothing (less the outer arctic mitten), and by a person dressed in NBC clothing.

Redfield iron sights were originally selected for use with the M24; Palma rear sights and International front sights with replaceable inserts. Unfortunately in the early 1990s, Redfield stopped making these sights and subsequently a new set had to be sourced. Eventually the RPA Trakker sights were selected and applied to the new M24 builds. The RPA sights required a different rear and front base which had other effects (more on that later).
***

....Fwiw, Haugen was a SOTIC instructor for 1st SFG in the early 1990s. He said they trained SF snipers on the iron sights during the first week of training, and at the end of that week, they put them back in the optics case and never looked back. He also mentioned that operationally they would only be used if the sniper's position was facing direct sun and reflection from the scope's objective lens might be detectable. (presumably an ARD mitigated that issue). That's all I l know about the M24s iron sights.

 

[MikeMiller]

I went to Remington’s Armorer School 1995. I asked why the long action and was told the US Army wanted ability to potentially change to 300 WM later

A friend who was at Crane told me the reason they picked the 220SMK over the 210 SMK was the 220 was accurate over a longer round count in the barrels. So they gave up the ballistics advantage of the 210 to get a rifle that would shoot longer without having to change barrels

Now I ran 300WM in comps a few years later and in the few barrels I shot out I believe the 220 shoots better longer without having to chase the lands also

I quit 300WM in comp because Match Directors were getting pissed it kept breaking steel target. 220 at 2950 fps

 

[ma smith]

A friend who was at Crane told me the reason they picked the 220SMK over the 210 SMK was the 220 was accurate over a longer round count in the barrels. So they gave up the ballistics advantage of the 210 to get a rifle that would shoot longer without having to change barrels

This consideration is still relevant. There is an intersting discussion on cleaning .mil spec rifles here with Kevin Owens. Litz also discussed doing research for this in his latest book. Apparently the .mil guys were having them shoot 1,000 rounds per barrel to track barrel life and see what happened to practical accuracy as round count increased. There is a whole chapter in his latest book on this (see Vol 3, chapter 8).

 

[Bhobbs]

It would have been interesting to see the Army develop modern .30-06 for snipers.

 

[TorF]

With a 1-8" barrel in 308 the M24 can be loaded with 198 Warner Flatline bullets in the magazine and still be backwards compatible with 7.62NATO ball in a shtf scenario.
If I remember correctly the 198gr Flatline is supersonic to 1600yds out of a 308win.

 

[lockedandloaded]

With a 1-8" barrel in 308 the M24 can be loaded with 198 Warner Flatline bullets in the magazine and still be backwards compatible with 7.62NATO ball in a shtf scenario.
If I remember correctly the 198gr Flatline is supersonic to 1600yds out of a 308win.

This is wizard level ballistics.

 

[TorF]

This is wizard level ballistics.

From the hide: A 308 sending a 198gr bullet with a G1 BC of 0.855 at 2750fps - that ain't too bad.... shots with less wind deflection than a 208gr Amax doing 3000fps

https://www.snipershide.com/shooting/threads/warner-flatline-30cal-loads-all-cartridges.6254934/

https://www.snipershide.com/shootin...n-mt-results-from-field.6639490/#post-7469724

 

[USMCSGT0331]

This is wizard level ballistics.

^^^This post is correct! It's a widely believed fact that it's impossible for any .308 Win. to make it past 800 yards. A 6.5 Creedmoor shooter on the internet even provided me with this totally-not-fake ballistics chart as proof, so this information has to be accurate (and/or precise)!

 

[lockedandloaded]

Parker Otto Ackley (P.O. Ackley) was the Resident-in-chief gunsmith of Guns & Ammo magazine. He developed the worlds most accurate hyper-velocity cartridge in 1966. I present to you the .22 Eargensplitter Loudenboomer

 

[USMCSGT0331]

Parker Otto Ackley (P.O. Ackley) was the Resident-in-chief gunsmith of Guns & Ammo magazine. He developed the worlds most accurate hyper-velocity cartridge in 1966. I present to you the .22 Eargensplitter Loudenboomer

I thought about doing a ridiculous build with a cartridge like that, but the barrel life on the crazy velocity stuff isn't that good. So, I decided to go the exact opposite route and now I'm working on two .10 Eichleberger Long Rifle builds. It's a 12 step process to neck down the .22LR brass to .10ELR, the custom die set cost a small fortune to have made, lol.

 

[lockedandloaded]

I thought about doing a ridiculous build with a cartridge like that, but the barrel life on the crazy velocity stuff isn't that good. So, I decided to go the exact opposite route and now I'm working on two .10 Eichleberger Long Rifle builds. It's a 12 step process to neck down the .22LR brass to .10ELR, the custom die set cost a small fortune to have made, lol.

Worth every penny spent on its development. I will now be scrounging every rimfire case at the local range due to impending legislation.

 

[longtines]

FWIW, my first thought is always in the "green corner" -- money changing hands.

 

[Bulletsmith]

I've been doing a mountain of investigation on the M24s and I can't find conclusive information on why the M24 has the Long Action receiver with a short action cartridge. So we might as well all argue about it!

In the blue corner;
The Long Action receiver is because the Army wanted a 300 Win Mag.

In the red corner;
The Long Action receiver is because the Army's standard sniper ammunition at the start of the project was the M72 30-06 ammunition which would have necessitated the long act receiver.

If anyone has any information supporting either stance, i'd love to hear it.

Thanks

Carso

Carso, the deployment case came with an xtra bolt for the .300wm.
30-06 was out of service by the time the M24 was being developed.

 

[Zigjib]

Carso, the deployment case came with an xtra bolt for the .300wm.
30-06 was out of service by the time the M24 was being developed.

Thanks mate, appreciate the info

 

[Trigger Monkey]

Carso, the deployment case came with an xtra bolt for the .300wm.
30-06 was out of service by the time the M24 was being developed.

Lol no it didn't.

 

[Charger442]

If I were designing a long action rifle to shoot a short action cartridge, I would fabricate and install a spacer similar to that used in the M1 Garand that shoots 7.62x51mm ammunition. A shortened follower and spring would be easy to fabricate to accommodate the use of the spacer. When converting the weapon to a long action cartridge, the spacer could be removed and suitable follower and spring installed. It's possible that a short action spacer and spring, i.e. 308 Winchester parts, would work if the spacer was designed to accommodate them.

The spacer I would design would be positioned rearward closer to the bolt face, not the chamber like on the M1 Garand.

Winchester figured out the "spacer" decades ago. Basically a shorter mag follower and a bolt stop that kept the stroke shorter. Did it on the model 70. Why Remington couldn't do is beyond me. Point #5,853 of why they have been failing and trying to go out of business since the 60s.

 

[Random Guy]

Winchester figured out the "spacer" decades ago. Basically a shorter mag follower and a bolt stop that kept the stroke shorter. Did it on the model 70. Why Remington couldn't do is beyond me.

Yep. To illustrate here's a pre-64 M70 bolt and the parts needed to convert it from 30-06 to 308W length cartridge's.
The add-on bolt stop kept the bolt from being pulled too far back relative to the magazine box with the 308W round.

The M70 magazine box for the shorter 308W round also had to use an 'insert' or false wall at the back of the magazine box (see arrow).

As for the M24 program, Remington had to use the long action as the original US Army RFP stated a requirement to accommodate the longer 300WM round. They likely didn't want to introduce all these other 'conversion' parts to the rifle like Winchester did on the M70 - as a military sniper rifle must be reliable. The long action with the 308W round is just something the sniper's were trained on, and I don't think it adversely impacted the rifle's performance in the field. The M24 was indeed reliable for over two decades of service (and multiple wars), so it's a moot point at this time....

When the US Army finally did ask Remington to convert the M24s to 300 WinMag circa 2009ish, the M24s were sent back to Remington and those old long action receivers were reborn as the M2010 (unless the receivers were out-of-spec/unserviceable). So, in the end it worked out, and saved money.

 

[sandwarrior]

Yep. To illustrate here's a pre-64 M70 bolt and the parts needed to convert it from 30-06 to 308W length cartridge's.
The add-on bolt stop kept the bolt from being pulled too far back relative to the magazine box with the 308W round.
View attachment 8288166
The M70 magazine box for the shorter 308W round also had to use an 'insert' or false wall at the back of the magazine box (see arrow).
View attachment 8288167

As for the M24 program, Remington had to use the long action as the original US Army RFP stated a requirement to accommodate the longer 300WM round. They likely didn't want to introduce all these other 'conversion' parts to the rifle like Winchester did on the M70 - as a military sniper rifle must be reliable. The long action with the 308W round is just something the sniper's were trained on, and I don't think it adversely impacted the rifle's performance in the field. The M24 was indeed reliable for over two decades of service (and multiple wars), so it's a moot point at this time....

When the US Army finally did ask Remington to convert the M24s to 300 WinMag circa 2009ish, the M24s were sent back to Remington and those old long action receivers were reborn as the M2010 (unless the receivers were out-of-spec/unserviceable). So, in the end it worked out, and saved money.

View attachment 8288178

Actually, there were problems with the long follower. The cartridges on top tended to work forward and would sometimes 'nose down' in the magazine. Not a catastrophic failure, so the only thing done was, as you said happened, training to check this.

Edit: added, My 722 in .222 Rem has a block in it's magazine. So, obviously, Remington knew about short cartridges in a magazine too long for them. Not to blame Remington though. Plenty of idiots in Washington making uninformed/unqualified decisions. Yeah, build this excellent sniper rifle then not allow the manufacturer the extra $1 to optimize it.

 

[Bulletsmith]

Lol no it didn't.

Well I guess the xtra bolt that was in my deployment kit box was not a WM bolt. Must have been for something else.

 

[Trigger Monkey]

Perhaps you got a unicorn at your unit but I can only go by my experience and our unit never issued the M24's with an extra bolt assembly in .300WM and nothing of the like was mentioned in the TM, no line item or NSN was available for just the bolt assembly.

 

[sandwarrior]

Perhaps you got a unicorn at your unit but I can only go by my experience and our unit never issued the M24's with an extra bolt assembly in .300WM and nothing of the like was mentioned in the TM, no line item or NSN was available for just the bolt assembly.

Agreed, why would the Army issue a non-functional bolt to a weapon that can’t use it? Because, use of that bolt would require a change of barrel also. Not doable in the field. And, per Remington’s contract, not doable by anyone but them. Yes, the plan was to eventually make those actions into .300 WM’s. But, not piecemeal by the troops.

 

[JINm40a1]

Just a question for the more knowledgeable guys on here. Was the M24 ever issued a leupold mark 4 3.5-10 FFP mildot scope? I just have this 3.5-10 leupold fell on my laps and havinng real difficulties locating a M3A ultra scope for my M24. Will the 3.5-10 just do fine for the clone correctness. I would appreciate anyone's input on this.

 

[sinister]

Let's review.

The US Army Marksmanship Unit shoots in the annual Interservice Rifle Championships at Quantico, Virginia, and the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio.

There are two long-range rifle divisions: Service Rifle and Match Rifle / Unlimited.

Service Rifle until 2015 required an iron-sight M1, M14, M16, or SR-25 / AR-10. In 2016 4.5X telescopes were authorized.

Match Rifle / Any-Rifle included bolt actions and magnums. There are iron-sight days and iron-sight matches, and any-sight (telescope) matches. There are no caliber restrictions so military and service teams have used high-velocity cartridges to minimize wind dispersion, to include the 30-338 Magnum, the 300 Winchester Magnum, 7mm Magnums, and the 6.5 x 284.

Special Forces had requirements for long-distance target penetration / defeat and had pretty much centered capability on the 300 Winchester Magnum. The Special Forces Target Interdiction Course starting in 1984/85 was the foundational ARSOF sniper training outside of sending instructors to Quantico to the Marine Scout-Sniper Instructor Course.

There was NO established central United States Army sniper course after Vietnam. Sniper courses were generally conducted by the Army Marksmanship Unit and the Major Command, Numbered Army, regional, division, and post Marksmanship Training Units (MTUs). Those were pretty much deactivated, with XVIIIth Airborne Corps' MTU closing in 1985, their gear declared excess and transferred to SOTIC.

There was NO Army Sniper School after Vietnam until 1987. The Standard-A sniper rifle until 1988 was the M-21 with ART II scope (while the USAMU still had the ART 1 at Fort Benning through at least 1983).

SOTIC was commanded by Captain John Stanley. Master Sergeant Rick Boucher (later a Civil Service sniper instructor) represented SOTIC as one of SF's technical reps in the negotiations with Leg Army trying to get a standard bolt rifle into system (as opposed to SF's older McMillans, 700s, and 40Xs).

SF wanted 300 Winchester Magnum. Leg Army wanted 7.62 Match. THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR 30-06 MATCH -- A DEAD CARTRIDGE. Big Army compromised on the long action (if SF wanted 300 Win Mag, they could use new USSOCOM money authorized under MFP-11 funding created under the 1987 Nunn-Cohen Act which formed combatant commands, the United States Special Operations Command, and Special Forces as a separate Army branch).

The authors of that Rifle Shooter article are full of shit. As they say in mathematics, "Show your work." In law, "Present your case and evidence."
Rick is retired and still very much alive.

The Army's sniper school was established in 1987. This article's author (the Fort Benning Historian) just happens to be one of my running buddies. Link: A Short History of Army Snipers and the U.S. Army Sniper Course

 

[sandwarrior]

Let's review.

The US Army Marksmanship Unit shoots in the annual Interservice Rifle Championships at Quantico, Virginia, and the National Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio.

There are two long-range rifle divisions: Service Rifle and Match Rifle / Unlimited.

Service Rifle until 2015 required an iron-sight M1, M14, M16, or SR-25 / AR-10. In 2016 4.5X telescopes were authorized.

Match Rifle / Any-Rifle included bolt actions and magnums. There are iron-sight days and iron-sight matches, and any-sight (telescope) matches. There are no caliber restrictions so military and service teams have used high-velocity cartridges to minimize wind dispersion, to include the 30-338 Magnum, the 300 Winchester Magnum, 7mm Magnums, and the 6.5 x 284.

Special Forces had requirements for long-distance target penetration / defeat and had pretty much centered capability on the 300 Winchester Magnum. The Special Forces Target Interdiction Course starting in 1984/85 was the foundational ARSOF sniper training outside of sending instructors to Quantico to the Marine Scout-Sniper Instructor Course.

There was NO established central United States Army sniper course after Vietnam. Sniper courses were generally conducted by the Army Marksmanship Unit and the Major Command, Numbered Army, regional, division, and post Marksmanship Training Units (MTUs). Those were pretty much deactivated, with XVIIIth Airborne Corps' MTU closing in 1985, their gear declared excess and transferred to SOTIC.

There was NO Army Sniper School after Vietnam until 1987. The Standard-A sniper rifle until 1988 was the M-21 with ART II scope (while the USAMU still had the ART 1 at Fort Benning through at least 1983).

SOTIC was commanded by Captain John Stanley. Master Sergeant Rick Boucher (later a Civil Service sniper instructor) represented SOTIC as one of SF's technical reps in the negotiations with Leg Army trying to get a standard bolt rifle into system (as opposed to SF's older McMillans, 700s, and 40Xs).

SF wanted 300 Winchester Magnum. Leg Army wanted 7.62 Match. THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR 30-06 MATCH -- A DEAD CARTRIDGE. Big Army compromised on the long action (if SF wanted 300 Win Mag, they could use new USSOCOM money authorized under MFP-11 funding created under the 1987 Nunn-Cohen Act which formed combatant commands, the United States Special Operations Command, and Special Forces as a separate Army branch).

The authors of that Rifle Shooter article are full of shit. As they say in mathematics, "Show your work." In law, "Present your case and evidence."
Rick is retired and still very much alive.

The Army's sniper school was established in 1987. This article's author (the Fort Benning Historian) just happens to be one of my running buddies. Link: A Short History of Army Snipers and the U.S. Army Sniper Course

I'll agree with most of that with the exception of 30-06 being a dead cartridge. Yes, dead in the sense there was no plan for furtherance of the cartridge. But, not dead in the sense that there was still a fair abundance of M1/M72 (and-A2) ammo in use, available for competition. Probably where the misconception came from that it could possibly be the next cartridge in line for use in the M24. Not going to happen, as SF had already been testing the .300 WM and seemed satisfied with that direction.

 

[sinister]

Correct, especially for the Navy's and Coast Guard's competition M1 Garands in Service Rifle Class-- but certainly not service/combat or bolt guns. It's still catalogued as of 2005:

 

[Random Guy]

FWIW:
“The final lot of M72 was manufactured by Lake City AAP in 1968. LC also packaged the remaining ammunition from 1967 in 1968 cartons and boxes so you'll find some over-lap.

…,The decision to stop the manufacture of M72 was mostly the result of declining demand due to the use of the 7.62mm NATO and the M14 NM rifle.”

…btw, the Air Force match M1s largely switched from 30-06 to 7.62 NATO during 1970-71. (RIA made a special batch of M1 Garand match barrels in 7.62mm were made for the Air Force in 1969). The Navy Mk 2 Mod 1 Grade A and B rifles had also made the switch by then (they used air-gauged SA 7.62 NATO barrels made in 1965-66). By 1971 all the “Big Teams” were using 7.62 instead of 30-06 including the Navy and Air Force M1s. Why? The competitors scores were consistently higher with the M118 match ammo compared to M72. There were likely some stragglers on the small teams, but M72 was not really used at Camp Perry by the Big Teams by the early 1970s, and again, it was last made in 1968.

As to Big Army: They formally (finally) deemed the M1D sniper rifles in 30-06 obsolete in 1972, when the XM-21 sniper rifles were adopted as ‘Standard A’, becoming the M21, which of course was a 7.62x51mm weapon.

My point? There was at maximum a 0.0 percent chance the M24 sniper rifle would revert back to the obsolete 30-06 cartridge/M72 ammo, and any article claiming otherwise is poorly researched.

This horse is dead. No need to kick it anymore...

 

[cas6969]

why would the Army issue a non-functional bolt to a weapon that can’t use it?

Because it sounds EXACTLY like something they would do?

 

[Haney]