XM2010 Sniper Rifle to Get Full Fielding

No question about the .300 Win Mag being a long range contender.
But I wonder what kind of barrel life the shooters will realize. Like other magnums, it can be a real throat-burner.

If the purpose of the weapon is for ultra-long range engagements at maximum accuracy, wouldn't one assume they'd be using very hot loads?

I'm sure they've thought all this through...but it seems likely they're in for some frequent barrel changes. Definitely more frequently than the .308, in any case...
 
If it helps our Soldiers, then my tax dollars will assist in buying extra barrels. I will support any and every advantage on the battle field.
 
It's about time. The army has been talking about converting the M-24 to 300 WM for a long time.

I was running the sniper program for the Alaska National Guard using M1C/Ds. I was giving the choice of going to the M-24 in 308, or taking the M-21s and waiting for the 300 WM conversion.

I had just built a few 300 WM Model 70s, 1000 yard match rifles but we didn't have an allocation for match 300 WMs, I figured if I got the M-24 in 300 then I could get ammo to use in our 1000 yard program. That was in the late 80s.

Guess its better late then never.

The Army uses 190s for their 300 WM,s. I never could get them to shoot in my Model 70. It likes the 200 grn SMKs.
 
The "new" military 300 Win Mag load the Navy cooked up has a 220 gr SMK smoking fast out of the barrel. It is a 90% solution to the 338 Lapua. The goal was a 1500 meter round, but it can go further depending on the operator.

The 190s do fine but the 220s do better at extended ranges.

Jimro
 
I wasn't implying that the cost of barrels is an issue...it's not.
I'm sure everyone on this forum, myself included, agrees with your statement.
I was simply raising a question of barrel life of this caliber vs. the .308...
 
Good stuff..

Although I calculate 2.5 MOA to be 28.6" at 1000m (correct me if my math is wrong, but I'm pretty sure there's no simple math errors). When you are considering a 22" torso, being off by over 6" instead of 3" is a pretty big inaccuracy.. That's very relevant when deciding if a weapon is capable or not and makes the case for the .300 WM over the M107 all the better.

I know, I know.. it's a magazine that sells papers, not a technical article. Army Times just bothers me sometimes because of stuff like this.
 
A Barrett M82A1 only has 2.5 MOA capability? Bull!!!!! Not sure what ammo they're using to get such poor accuracy.
Click to expand...


Raufuss rounds, they aren't quite precision but they do explode when they hit. As stated in the article, its more anti-material than anti-personnel.
 
The Marine Corps uses an M82A4 version of the Barrett and are getting better results than the Army. But they are using much better than delinked ball ammo.

But even the stock M107 is capable of good accuracy with match ammo, which just isn't in the Army inventory right now.

Jimro
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top