Why the M110

[pshell]

Re: Why the M110

Whats the downfall of the the KAC can on the Mk13? It's one of my assigned weapons and I love it. I guess if you take it off, you will have to fire a couple rounds downrange to seal it back up, but you never have to take it off. Is this the downfall that is being spoken of?

Our 110's have been turned in, guess somebody's stuff was doubling. Not that big of a deal for us, our's were not. I noticed a guy comment on the the 110 being an 800m gun. I would not trust it past 600m unless it was clean and cold. Our 110's were accurate when new, but after they got hot (easy to do) not so much. Still a OK rifle. I would carry something else given
the chance. If you have shot an SR-25, you know the deal.

The Remington military division has some great stuff planned for the military if the buy it. New receiver that is a switch barrel/bolt design (user serviceable)that looks similar to the M16 family in execution. Nice stock, similar to AI with removable rails, DM system. Hope they win the contract.

On topic, I don't know why the .mil bought the 110. Seems like the M-14 was filling the role just fine. Got to keep the .gov contractors in business.

 

[Lindy]

Re: Why the M110

The KAC can mounts with two points of contact with the barrel. The barrel and the can are different metals, and they expand at different rates when they get hot, leading to inaccuracies in many rifles. Some will shoot, and shoot well, but they are just wildly inconsistent.

A can which mounts with a single point of contact with the barrel, either a screw-on or a quick-disconnect mount, tends to be much more consistent.

 

[Mo_Zam_Beek]

Re: Why the M110

The ATK pdf that Lindy posted left me with two (2) questions -

1. They are discussing a powder that is consistent across -25 to 165 degrees. Does this exist now? How does something like Varget or RE 15 / 22 compare?

2. The same document states that the 220 SMK was better than the 210 VLD. Did they only look at Sierra projectiles? I was under the impression that the Berger 210 VLD was better than a 220 SMK.


TIA

 

[Alaskaman11]

Re: Why the M110

"Our 110's have been turned in, guess somebody's stuff was doubling. Not that big of a deal for us, our's were not. I noticed a guy comment on the the 110 being an 800m gun. I would not trust it past 600m unless it was clean and cold. Our 110's were accurate when new, but after they got hot (easy to do) not so much. Still a OK rifle. I would carry something else given
the chance. If you have shot an SR-25, you know the deal."

THats my whole point, this is the army buying shit for the war it just got done fighting. He stated that he would not trust it past 600 M and in the center of Bagdad or any other uburn shit hole thats good engough (i'll catch flack on that statment) But we are moving back to A-Stan and we all know that place is wide fuckin open. To el Captaino point (ie Lowlight) It was my understanding that all M-24 where being shitcaned for the M110.

 

[Psywar1-0]

Re: Why the M110

Just for clarifications sake on the Mk13

Mods 2, 4, and 6 are simply left hand versions of 1, 3 & 5. One particular component of USSOCOM does not force its LH Snipers to shoot Right handed.

As to the suppressor issue, Im sure someone out there makes a really good suppressor for 300WM, but they for sure didnt submit it for testing. None of the suppressors that have been tested recently have provided either an accuracy improvement, or an improvement in dB reduction. As such spending money to change suppressors but not gaining anything makes no sense. And well, given how some units got butt hurt when other units that got slighted on the fielding of earlier mods of the Mk13, tried to line jump on the Mod 5 by trying to shoot out their in hand rifles early...........

On the PSR, IIRC the first sources sought went out and specified 30 Cal, but that was later amended to be anything smaller than .50, so the PSR could be anything between .30 and .499 The only place that it seems to be written in stone that its going to be .338 is on the Errornet.

Now, back to disscussing how some companies make wonderful test guns, but fall on their faces when it comes to full on production.

 

[pshell]

Re: Why the M110

Thanks Lindy, that makes sense.

Alaskaman 11, it's across the board-the Army buying stuff for the last war. I imagine it will always be that way. There are very few units out there that can purchase off the shelf stuff, when it comes to the big items. To much bureaucracy in the system. There are so many checks and balances that it either takes years to get what the end used needs and/or they don't get what they need. I totally understand what your saying..

 

[bohem]

Re: Why the M110

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Mo_Zam_Beek</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The ATK pdf that Lindy posted left me with two (2) questions -

1. They are discussing a powder that is consistent across -25 to 165 degrees. Does this exist now? How does something like Varget or RE 15 / 22 compare?

2. The same document states that the 220 SMK was better than the 210 VLD. Did they only look at Sierra projectiles? I was under the impression that the Berger 210 VLD was better than a 220 SMK.


TIA </div></div>

For the 220 grain bullets I'm pretty sure the Varget is too fast to optimize the velocity, and the RL-15 is too fast as well. I could be wrong, it certainly wouldn't be the first time.

I'd expect the best velocity from RL-22, however it is temp sensitive. I saw that a little 2 weeks ago, and a lot last weekend when I was shooting it from my 30-06.

Ambient (cold bore) temp rifle and ammo (74* F) and I was getting a quick 5 string average of 2852 fps from a 208 Amax, ES was about 15 fps. When it heated up and the ammo sat in the chamber for 15-45secs I got velocities that ranged from 2885-3059 fps (interestingly no pressure signs, but still scared me good)

All the same charge, all trickled to within 0.02 grains.