Army Begins Search for Compact Sniper Rifle

Army weapons officials released a “sources sought” solicitation yesterday, officially launching a search for an M110 Compact Semi Automatic Sniper System. I wrote about the Army’s desire to equip squad designated marksman with a shorter version of the M110 SASS in April.

The market survey is intended to identify potential sources for manufacturing a complete system or reconfiguring some or all of the existing 7.62 x 51mm M110 systems currently available in Army inventory.

Gun makers have until August 14 to respond with their initial ideas for producing the new CSASS.

 Here’s a list of the initial 15 requirements industry would have to meet:

1. Operation: Semi-automatic
2. Caliber: Compatible with 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges
3. Accuracy: Capable of 0.60″ AMR at 100m or better with match ammunition.
4. Size: Overall length shall be reduced using a shorter barrel and/or collapsible buttstock. Maximum overall assembled length of the rifle shall be not greater than 36 inches with the stock at its shortest position and no sound suppressor mounted.

5. Weight: Weight shall be no more than 9.0 lb for the unloaded rifle without optics and accessories.
6. Grip: A modular, adjustable pistol grip.
7. Trigger: A non-adjustable match style trigger.
8. Hand guard: A fore-end that includes a fixed 12 o’ clock rail with configurable 3, 6, and 9 o’ clock rails.
9. Sound suppressor: A muzzle mounted, detachable sound suppressor.
10. Muzzle device: A compensator/muzzle break compatible with the sound suppressor.
11. Bipod: Tool-less detachment featuring cant and pan/track capability.
12. Day optic: An Army specified variable power day optic and compatible rings.
13. Back up sights: Iron sights offset 45 deg from the DOS.
14. Sling attachment: Flush cup, quick detach sling attachment points.
15. Barrel and Receiver Life: Significant improvement from M110 requirements while enduring higher rates of fire.

About the Author

Matthew Cox
Matthew Cox has been a defense reporter since 1998 and is an associate editor for He traveled to Afghanistan and Iraq numerous times from 2002 to 2008, covering infantry units in combat. Matthew was an infantryman in the 82nd Airborne Division.

135 Comments on "Army Begins Search for Compact Sniper Rifle"

  1. So basically, the Army is buying the rifle they should have bought five years ago? For some reason, people equate barrel length with accuracy. Longer barrels give you more velocity, not necessarily more accuracy.

    A 16" barrel is much more appropriate for a 7.62x51mm semi-automatic sniper rifle than is a 20" barrel. The collapsible stock should really be seen as a requirement these days, not an option.

  2. A KT RFB modified with a lighter trigger pull and automatic gas plug like the Saiga 12's would fit the bill perfectly.

  3. ****, a SOCOM-II with a Troy or JAE stock would do with a couple of modifications.

  4. This is why the AR-15 improved piston or gas tube system is great, you can change barrels, uppers to needed length and even change calibers. Other than single shots, ther eis not a better cost effective platform avaliable.One size can fit all if done correctly.

  5. We don't need another rifle to spend millions on ! We need the ones we have, with extreme prejudice!

  6. I think this may be a few years down the road. Overall I dont see the need for a collapsible stock or a shorter barrel SINCE most snipers want to have more of a sturdy sniper rifle than a LARGE M-4 to shoot with the infantry.

    Overall with more cuts coming thins may be a pipe dream someone in PEO solder wanted since he liked his M-4 and hated to see a sniper with a M-110 have a fixed stock.

  7. Why use the 7.62 NATO? Why not a semi auto bullpup .338 Lapua. Wait that would cost a billion dollars and 10 years to find it's out of date and didn't work right to begin with.

    Guess what, if the Army went with the 6.8mm SPC round or another similar intermediate cartridge all this would be a moot point. Something that can be shot from a short barrel without losing velocity so forget the Grendel please.

    There is answers for these questions but the DOD refuses to use common sense and proven methodology. LMT already makes this weapon for other nations.

  8. Sounds like a semi-auto version of Cooper's scout rifle…

  9. Screams Larue OBR to me.

    Now if 'they' can find a decent scope(Leopold M6 3-18x)?

  10. I wonder if they know KAC makes it? The SR-25 would fit this roll perfectly.

    Honestly its what the M110 should have been from the beginning but they just had to have a fixed stock:rolleyes:

  11. I wonder if they know KAC makes it? The SR-25 would fit this roll perfectly.

    Honestly its what the M110 should have been from the beginning but they just had to have a fixed stock

  12. 10. Muzzle device: A compensator/muzzle break compatible with the sound suppressor.

    Muzzle break? Designed so the end of the barrel falls off?

    If the people who write the specs do not know what a muzzle brake is, no surprise small arms acquisition is a mess.

  13. FormerSFMedic | August 2, 2012 at 4:49 am | Reply

    ***!?!? So the end of the barrel falls off? Lol!

  14. The SR25 is used but there were more refinements needed than a fixed stock.

  15. Why not a Bullpup version of the M110?

  16. The Army continues to baffle me. Cuts up the wazoo and they want ANOTHER rifle, wow. A short, semi-automatic sniper rifle may have its place and need but they need to focus on getting their M4 business handled. They either need to retrofit the M4 with a kit or uppers or whatever their idea is, buy a new rifle, or DO NOTHING. I don't like this "Let's buy a new one next year, and the next, and the next, and the next." thing that they have going.

    I would leave the 20" barrel and simply introduce a collapsible stock and call it a compromise, of all the places that a 16" barrel on an M110 would be appropriate-Afghanistan seems to not be one.
    Question to all that have deployed (as I am a civi) – Do you think that a 16" barrel on a DM rifle is needed for where you are fighting? Your opinions are worth more than mine or anyone else's and I would like to know.

  17. Ok wrong way to put it. After 8 years in the Corp 2 years in the Army 10 years in the guard an Army contractor in Iraq 2006. I have designed a simple way to take one of the greatest combat rifles ever deployed (M14 / M1a) and still in theatre today and shorten it ONE FOOT. The addvertisement is looking for what I build. Dear Medic, first let me thank you for your service. Take one minute and go to my web site and tell me this is not the solution. Semper Fi. Rich Call me my # is their.

  18. ONe more thing. I disagree with your comments on Snipers do not want them. SF has our system in the Sandbox and the SEALS are deploying with them. !

  19. If you are talking to me ****@***********.*** SF.

  20. No, it wouldn't. Kel-Tec makes garbage.

  21. Not sure what you mean, the ****@******** *** SF was my email which apparently is not allowed the SF is for Semper Fi. This will conclude my entries I will let the Key Board Commando (Medic) have it. SF. Rich

  22. M110 with a 16" barrel and collapsable buttstock. is it really that difficult? im sure they'll spend millions of dollars on it and reinvent the wheel. or they could go with a larue OBR…

  23. ok people…stop talking about bullpup's, M14s, and SCAR's, they made it clear they wanted a rifle that looked like an M4 so the SDM was not a target.

  24. I can guarantee you the SOCOM II will not achieve the accuracy requirement. A bona fide M14 cannot achieve that level of accuracy.

  25. Tom D (shortround67/ | August 3, 2012 at 12:50 pm | Reply

    I'm not sorry am an old Grunt M14 E2 , shorten bipod by half , sniper barrel , barrel could be shortened by lenght of suppressor. I wouldnt shorten or change the stock , Its like holding my best girl in my arms , Kill range is thing of legends. Only thing I have found close is Mauser 8mm , sporteized stock barrel shortened 4 ". What in the world is wrong with the M48 sys?

  26. Hrm 36" would fit a SCAR Standard w/ 16.5" barrel. That's what mine measures with the buttstock extended.

    If they wanted a longer barrel, I think they'd need to go with a bullpup design.

  27. the scar-h or L arperfect for this they're both designed for up close and personal as well as long range

  28. M-16 A4 is also a very fine rifle for the bill at hand

  29. I love the idea of a compact sniper rifle…it's more ideal for urban warfare in my opinion. I also love it because I want to join the US Army and hopefully become a sniper myself, but I'm a little on the short side and from what I've heard from soldiers the snipers that are in use today are/would be too big and powerful for me to shoot. (I'm 5'6")

  30. Hey! If the Army cannot get it done with the weapons at hand, time to disband.

    We taxpayers are broke and sick and tired of paying for wild goose chase junk.

    If you can't get it done with an M16 then go work for the TSA or something.

  31. Never been there and never done that but I do shoot. I have been eyeing an A10 in .308/7.62. If they built this rifle in a short magnum, they could shorten the action. With a collapsible stock and a 16" barrel, could they have something similar enough to the M4 that the training would apply to both rifles. I understand, sort of, the supply problem with something that is not in the system but the logistics could be managed.

  32. Dar,
    The weapon itself may be large enough to be a problem but the caliber is used in youth rifles so I wouldn't sweat the power/recoil.

  33. I was thinking about shorter & larger barrels and the rounds, having extending aelirons and quidance control.

    What they really want is smart-rounds, imagine that level of miniaturization. wow.

  34. Matt – "It just seems that the Army has a habit of putting money into systems that end up going no-where and that there are other services that make better choices or live with what they have."
    "the Army does have a “thing” with getting bored with one program and going on to another"

    EXAMPLES? Don't think the Army is any more guilty of this than any other service…

  35. Xcalbr, actually the M-21 system which is a modified M-14 will, I know I carried 1 for years.

  36. but a good idea, just not Kel-Tec

  37. "EXAMPLES? Don’t think the Army is any more guilty of this than any other service…"

    The army isn't any more guilty than the other branches. all of them have wasted hundreds of billions of the taxpayers dollars. There is of course the F35, the V22, the Growler, the EFV (recently cancelled), the Future Combat Vehicles now transformed into the Ground Combat Vehicles.

    Infantry weapons are a tiny portions of defense spending.

  38. GAP 10 ( should fit the bill just right. Considered one of the best in its class for this type of work. Once I am done contracting here in Afghanistan, I am getting the GAP 10 as a gift to myself for all the time spent working overseas (military and civilian).

  39. Steyr Scout, tactical version. Add a flash hider and you're done. :)

  40. It seem to me like going for a compact DMR is kinda defeating the point. The idea is a weapon that can extend the effective range of an infantry squad, and a longer barrel helps in that regard. A standard M16 isn't all that heavy or unwieldy, and I'd imagine the current M110 isn't any worse in that regard. Just leave the door kicking to the guys with the M4s.

  41. Although I agree with some of the comments here that suggest that the Army does not need to spend money on another weapon system in the general sense, this is something that the Army does in fact need. In the current conflicts, we are finding that the insurgents are engaging from longer distances, and doing quick ambushes and retreating leaving us no opportunity to respond effectively. Putting sniper capabilities at the squad level (not fully sniper qualified, but roughly equivalent to advanced marksmen) would allow them to engage those enemies as they retreat, or before they can get into range to attack back in the first place.

    The Caliber Requirement of 7.62x51mm NATO makes sense from a logistics standpoint, and in line with those arguing that we don't need to spend excessive money developing *another* weapon system, I would agree that this would be a way to cut down the costs of deploying this weapon. However, in that same vein of thought, I would suggest that a similar requirement should be put forth for an M4 derivative that is similar. The M16 to M4 evolution could be taken down this path, and the potential to make every soldier a sniper if they gained the skill, (which when you realize that your life may depend upon it, you might be more motivated to do just that) is a very effective force multiplier in many of the current situations. Not all soldiers would reach that level, but those that did would be much more effective and increase their survival rate in combat at the same time.

    In a pinch, should 7.62 Ammo be in short supply, the "Neo-Sniper" in the squad could pick up one of those weapons and use it to still great effect. A couple of soldiers, with a level of training that is lower than a full fledged sniper, but better than your average soldier in the squad, will make them a much more dangerous target for those out there that intend to do us harm. It may even cool down wars, if the fear level involved with engaging us goes up as a consequence. (and don't tell me that these terrorists have no fear — they may control it better than some, but they *do* still get scared and run away!)

    Will this be manged right by the Army? Well, sometimes they get it right. I think this is more important than another Camouflage Pattern, which is costing a lot of money too, I might add. (not that better Camouflage is a bad thing, maybe just not as badly needed)

  42. hahaha that just made my day obviously an email address….

  43. notthatimportant | August 4, 2012 at 11:36 am | Reply

    I am pretty sure that the army will find the right weapon fitting to the requirements listed above. The only thing that makes me wonder is why not all 5,56mm guns are dumped or upgraded in favor of a caliber with a little more reach and punch like the 6.5 grendel or something similar. Logically this way far more firefights could be won (which implies less bodybags for own troops), presuming reconnaissance is working and possible targets are identified soon enough. And instead of giving the DM something in 7,62mm (which is not a bad caliber since I also know it from my time in the army but…I mean…seriously?) you could go right to .338 LM or .338 NM wich makes much more sense, especially if you also want to knock out some other things and want to have some psychological effect on the enemy too. And yes, something in .338 LM as you all know already comes in a small package like the guns from Desert Tactical Arms.

  44. Larue Tactical PredatOBR for sure! They also make it in 14.5"

  45. The reason we won't leave 7.62 is because it allows the SDM to use the ammo from the 240 in a pinch. The reason we won't adopt the 6.8mm is because the rest of NATO (and most of our other allies) uses 5.56×45. You may have noticed who was supplying the ammo in Iraq and Afghanistan. The DOD needs to work within these constraints.

  46. My two cents: keep the gun nice a short, but give it a heavy *** barrel offset with a collapsible bi-pod if shooter is going prone. When it comes to accuracy, barrel weight is more significant than barrel length… especially if we're talking compact sniper.

  47. You don't necessarily even need to have a collapsible stock, especially if you simply get a rifle in a bullpup configuration. By doing that, you get a much more efficient configuration for the weapon in terms of size and weight restrictions. You could keep the same basic rifle but convert it into a bullpup and have it be significantly shorter, without even sacrificing muzzle velocity or anything like that. The only problem may be that a bullpup configuration may be less familiar to a soldier used to working with a M-16-style weapon, but that's nothing that a bit of training can't fix.

  48. Have they bothered to get 5 or 6 top snipers together, sat down and asked them what they really would like. The guy polishing the seat is not the guy in the field on the 2 way range……
    Steady on I'm being sensible for once……..

  49. POF 308 w/20"Sniper Barrel, Semi-auto 7.62×51. 25 Rd Mag, Adj slid stock. 6X20X50 BDC Scope (Choice ?)

  50. Steve in St. Louis | August 4, 2012 at 6:51 pm | Reply

    With shorter barrel and and same ammunition, they would need a faster twist for the rifling to achieve the same accuracy.
    Otherwise they will need to change the ammunition to achieve higher velocity in the shorter barrel.
    High velocity with accuracy is the best combination, otherwise at long distances, bullet drop becomes an issue and then you need very accurate range determination and sight calibration, so higher velocity is certainly preferable. With a squad designated marksman, this will mean combat engagement, with immediate access and "quick on the draw". You really can't have that feature and a folding stock, although there are some shotguns which have been combat adapted with stocks which fit over the barrel, but that would interfere with optics. You give up quite a bit of range by shortening the barrel so a folding stock would probably be preferable, however a folding stock will probably affect accuracy as well.
    The whole idea of designated marksman for an infantry platoon just seems like a bad idea, since everyone should be a rifleman and a marksman. What is it the Marines say, every Marine a rifleman. There is some truth to it.
    The inadequacies of the 5.56 cartridge have become so severe the infantry squad actually needs someone with a 7.62 weapon to protect them from longer range weapons.
    Changing the cartridge to a more effective medium round, 6 or 7 mm with long range capability for everyone is probably eventually going to be necessary since the 5.56 round is so inadequate that a designated marksman needs to be attached to the squad for them to perform their job, a symptom that the 5.56 is inadequate to the job done by the infantry squad.
    If it's not simple, cheap and effective, it will never get done.

  51. Check out the Berger 7mm VDL ballistics – very impressive

  52. Take a moment to look at this website I think you'll agree with me this is the answer but it won't be picked due to politics. If you know who one of the primary owners is you know the progressive socialist ruling class both in and out of the military will never support him. I intend to procure one ASAP!

  53. The whole point of this is not to have it for SNIPERS. The reason they are looking for a collapsable stock and the other modifications is to be used with squad and platoon movements. The article clearly states that it will be utilized by Squad Designated Marksmen. Therefore, being that they will be utilized in such a manner they need to be light weight and carriable by a squad element. The SDM is "Counter-Sniper" to an extent. They have more training than you would get just from Basic Rifle Marksmanship, but not nearly to the extent of a Sniper. More attention to details of the article than just giving an opinion of a brand and whatever set up you may own may produce much more relevant discussion.

  54. Not sure why the "new" weapon has to be in 7.62, oh well…….If you just have to use 7.62, why not go down to the warehouse and checkout a M-14 ?

  55. SFMedic,

    I am wondering why you would say Larue might not meet not meet the requirements specified. We carry them now and my opinion is the OBR heavy would be the perfect choice within the existing field of current weapons systems. The OBR in the 18" configuration, to me, is a no brainer.

  56. Former SFMedic,

    I see your point. Larue does have a very good relationship with Surefire though and I don't think it would be too much of a hassle for the 45 degree iron sight mod on the system. Personally, I find that kind of setup awkward at best. But I'm old school. :)

    As you know, we have a choice in SFG's with what we carry, many of us have been using the OBR. I'm a firm believer in "if we use it, it's because it gets the job done."

    I don't know if Larue will enter the competition, like you say they are a realtively small manufacturer. I hope so.

  57. not a gun genius | August 5, 2012 at 10:33 am | Reply

    Is the military looking for a US based company? Because I believe the Germans (H&K) already have this exact rifle with few minor changes. HK417 is essentially what they are looking for right? They offer it in 20 and 16" versions. Also has a telescoping stock that's comparable to a magpul. Although I think the traditional m16 style NATO length stock would be much more stable. They mention the 45 degree flip up sights (which would be used when firing left handed I'd assume) but nothing in terms of optics. Are they looking to use an intermediate power between your normal acog and high power SASS type scope?

  58. The whole point of this is not to have it for SNIPERS. The reason they are looking for a collapsable stock and the other modifications is to be used with squad and platoon movements. The article clearly states that it will be utilized by Squad Designated Marksmen. Therefore, being that they will be utilized in such a manner they need to be light weight and carriable by a squad element. The SDM is “Counter-Sniper” to an extent. They have more training than you would get just from Basic Rifle Marksmanship, but not nearly to the extent of a Sniper. More attention to details of the article than just giving an opinion of a brand and whatever set up you may own may produce much more relevant discussion.

    Read more:
    Kit Up!

  59. The M110 SASS or Semi Automatic Sniper System is what they are looking to replace.

    Bolt action Sniper Systems are being replaced by Semi Automatics that allow for quicker follow up shots.

  60. The renegade public servants in the US government and military seek a compact sniper rifle to fortify their occupation of the foreign lands they unlawfully compel the deluded military servicemen to invade and to attempt martial law within the free States of this Union. Those of us that act to suppress the current insurrection by the above renegade public servants to destroy our Republic already have such things and more. US Military people will do well to more carefully consider their oath to defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We have not seen a foreign enemy here since the defining war of 1812. Since then there has been no end to insurrection, war and lawless occupation by these domestic enemies. Those who serve must weigh carefully the consequence of their compliance with lawless orders. Treason is a terrible thing but it is not as despicable as the cowardice of complicity. It may be difficult to remove this US Domestic Insurrection but we shall remove it. Beware of opposing snipers.

  61. Let's see…the specs are that the rifle rifle must be under 9 lb stripped; be semiautomatic, have a short barrel length and hold .60 MOA.

    Good luck with that.

    The short barrel, actually is NOT the concern. Lots of benchrest and extreme accuracy shooters use shorter barrels–less flex and whip upon firing, thus giving a more rigid barrel. The first problem is weight–these short barrels must have a heavy contour to withstand the whip and flex upon firing.

    The barrel/bolt interface is going to be dicey–for the type of accuracy wanted some blueprinting and truing of the action must be done, as well. The stock won't be much of a problem–free-float tubes have been used with great success.

    The rifle must also have a user-adjustable gas system–otherwise, the increased back-pressure of the round fired through a suppressor will batter the crap out of the lower receiver parts, eventually leading to premature parts failure.

    By far, the biggest problem is going to be ammunition. Asking a rifle to engage a target at certain ranges is fine. Expecting the rifle to carry through with it requires some work. The 147-150 grain .308 diameter bullet at military velocities (2600-2700 fps) will do the job fine, out to 500-600 yards. The 168 grain bullet will be stable and accurate out to about 700 to 800 yards. After that it goes subsonic–and when that happens in flight, the bullet becomes unstable and unpredictable. To achieve that type of accuracy, a 175 grain bullet or better, fired at a minimum 2600 fps is needed–in the .308/7.62 this will achieve 1000 yards, still be supersonic when it gets there, and will be more of an accurate round.

    Translated–the ammunition issued will have to dupicate the ballistics of the Federal Gold Medal Match bullet, loaded with the 175 grain MatchKing. The M118 round as currently loaded is the military version of this cartridge.

    Yes, in a pinch you will be able to break down a belt of 7.62×51 machine gun ammunition–but accuracy will suffer for it.

  62. FormerSFMedic | August 5, 2012 at 3:43 pm | Reply

    There seems to be a lot of speculation and opinion being thrown out there. Not only that, but some of these comments are just wrong. I'm gonna put a few things out there just for clarification. I'm not trying to single anyone out. So, don't assume I'm responding to you.

    1) This solicitation is the first step toward a goal that was set MANY years ago. The quest for a Compact Sniper Rifle was initiated by Snipers who needed a specific capability to fill roles that they had not previously been required to fill. Also, the adoption of a state of the art bolt gun chambered in .300 Win Mag negated the need for a full size semi auto. With that said, this solicitation, which is NOT a Request for Proposal, is about finding a SNIPER RIFLE for SNIPERS.

    2) The 7.62 cartridge was chosen for a number of reasons. Logistics, weight, firepower, etc. are all important things, however the most important reason is that it's PERFECT for the Compact Sniper Rifle role. There have been some concerns as well as some OPINION thrown out as fact. The truth is, the 175 grain 7.62 will stay supersonic out to 1100 yards from a 16" barrel. That's cold, hard fact that I have seen for myself during testing for this very program.

    3) More to follow……..

  63. No doubt, my point was that if reliability was an issue the team using the M110 would not have placed first.

    The SEAL team using the MK20's placed nearly last.

    I am not sure about what mods have been done, but I have seen them talked about before, the only one I am sure about is the Vapor bags now being supplied with them. The main issue they faced was the rusted bores and chambers from being stored improperly, the Vapor bags fix that issue.

  64. not a gun genius | August 5, 2012 at 4:42 pm | Reply

    So its clear that there is alot of information up in the air or unexplained in full by this article.
    rifles like m14 ebr and m39 emr and Mk 11mod 0 are all examples of semi auto sniper rifles that are considered less than ideal. And the sass m110 was the first to be able to have a fire rate almost 5 times faster than the m40a5.
    We want the SASS in a shorter overall system, yes? If they try in any way to do this while trying to save money, they won't accomplish the goals set forth. It just isn't something that can be pieced together with what we have already.

    The gentlemen who feels the bolt action is becoming obsolete is mistaken. The 338. Papua mag is a devastating round in many rifle configs…it scares opposition im sure of it considering its range and velocity. Barret 50 is clearly only necessary for very specific operations involving hard hitting (more like exploding) power and suppressive effectiveness. Long range engagements are less common as we learn more on middle east warfare. to have an infantry man who can reach past the m4/m16 and m249 with more power and precision is interesting to say the least.
    And im aware this is specifically for sniper capable soldiers not just highly accurate infantryman.
    Is that fair to say?

    If what they want is the SASS in a shorter config, dont they have the blueprint a solid 85-90% finished?

  65. a good rifle would be the LMT 308MWS, it beat out both the SCAR-H and the HK entry during the British trials. Now labeled as the L129A1.

  66. David olmstead | August 5, 2012 at 4:58 pm | Reply

    Shorten butt stock and extend the forestock to match required length. No need for suppressor if barrel is inside stock. And left over barrel cuy off. Rest stays the same and will save you money! Use current m110.

  67. That is a excellent rifle joshua. To quote a certain crusader "You chose…wisely"

  68. equal and opposite reaction my friend. Newton is a soldier's friend. ;)

    Im short and ugly, though everything from a 22 to a 50 caliber still loved me.

  69. The M25 and Mk 14 required extensive modification to be very accurate. My point is that the SOCOM is not properly tuned or modified to fit the criteria.

    My experience with the M14 EBR was different. They are a ******* to keep properly cleaned, because of the mounted optic and stock system, and when they are not cleaned and greased, they are unreliable. Certain soldiers didn't even use grease to lubricate them, which was a training deficiency more than anything.

    My point is that the platform leaves much to be desired. there are better ones out there for the job of a shortened sniper rifle.

  70. oh come on joshua. dont you want to relearn how to shoot and remaster the ergonomics of a bullpup LOL ;)

  71. This is about getting a compact sniper rifle, not a new DM rifle. the reason why designated marksmen keep getting brought up is simply so that they can get equipped with a compact sniper rifle that snipers can use too. Its about flexibility. Indeed, it is a wise decision to field a compact sniper rifle so that snipers and DM can use them instead of just a single design for DM.

    My point is that the HK417 is not what the army is looking for. It is not precise enough to be a sniper rifle (by US Army criteria), instead being a designated marksman rifle in the 16" and 20" barrel configurations. Perhaps the G28 can fit into this criteria, though not much is known about this weapon system.

  72. LMT def knows their AR-10's.

    the LMT was more durable, reliable, and more accurate than the SCAR-H, the HK417, and the Saber defense XR-10.

    I have yet to see any negative reports on the L129A1 from anyone who has been issued them, all I see are great reviews.

  73. Shooters,

    All good discourse on what always is a very personal and subjective matter. I have spent years working operationally and continue to do so, but also have the perspective of having led major DOD precision small arms capability acquisitions and would like to point out a few things. First of all, the reality is all of us will probably be disappointed if the requirements listed in this article are what actually was sent to industry. The USG continues to shoot itself in the foot by producing very poor quality capability documents and not being specific. For example, the way this solicitation is written, the "best" fit probably won't win because a much cheaper, not as good system will have a valid legal protest to say it should win if it so much as produces only a marginal improvement over current systems based on the very loose and subjective procurement criteria. From an acquisitions standpoint, this is a pure waste of time and money unless the Army significantly tightens up the language…remember, words mean things in acquisition standards and have legal implications for contracts.

    Second, although I am a fan of non-7.62 rounds that have far better ballistics, the reality again that drives the issue is cost. Specifically, the cost of ammo quickly and massively exceeds the cost of any specific rifle. Thus, the DoD is trapped in a self-reinforcing DOTMLPF cycle making it very hard to break away to a different caliber. Further, with many of your bigger rounds such as a .338 or Magnums, you significantly decrease the barrel life and again, massively increase the lifecycle costs of a rifle. In actual test cases (not manufacturer claims), most rifles tested to become the SR-21 for the Marine Corps chambered in hotter calibers burned out the barrels within round counts not suitable to even finish a training cycle at the SS school house without replacing the barrel. A few standouts did achieve what I consider a fair standard for barrel life, but again, the overall system cost was prohibitive for big Army or USMC fielding (SOF as you know has a different set of rules in this regard for good reason).

    I have fought this fight doggedly for years and can tell you it will leave you beaten and disillusioned. I have seen teams do outstanding work and identify exceptional systems for our shooters only to have the program killed over and over again by brass with retirement deals with KAC and the such (status quo)…the USMC REPR selection being a perfect example (overruling program team recommendations and buying an inferior system with dubious reliability in combat). We all have a stake in getting these procurements right so the first stop for anyone that is serious about action should be to contact the program officer and those with signatory authority…to include your Congressman. For those in uniform, you need to get yourself either heard or directly on the team developing the capability production document and follow through with influencing the testing and evaluation criteria…if not acting as a SME tester yourself. Short of that you will take what you get and I promise you it will not be what you, me, or anyone but a manufacturer wants.

  74. I am dubious that it is more durable and reliable, though accurate perhaps. This contention is based off of the lack of evidence and reporting on my part, though if it was true, I wouldnt be surprised.

    Lewis Machine & Tool makes excellent products. If I had to choose between one and a Larue OBR for AR10s, I would have to flip a quarter…or buy both.

  75. Every report I have seen in regards to the L129 trials(which have never been full reports) stated that the LMT entry outperformed the other entries in every category during testing. Though the LMT did shine in accuracy putting up 1MOA at 200M with the ball ammo the british use.

  76. They should look for the 243 cal. conversion.

  77. 6.16x51mm (.243 Win.)

    It is a bit heavier than the .223 and has some good bullets for long range shooting available. It does fall between the .223 and the .308 in terms of energy and penetration. The .243 has less recoil than the .308, and yet it sends bullets down range at near .223 speeds, with twice the bullet weight. This flat shooting cartridge does not suffer from some of the over penetration problems of the .308 and it doesn't suffer from some of the under penetration problems of the .223. In reality, this round is very suitable for the Law Enforcement arena. The .243 has never been used in any military rifle, but it would lend itself well to the 600+ meter sniping role.

    Recommendation: The .243 would be an excellent sharpshooter caliber. It provides good energy and good trajectory with some mid weight bullets. Anything the .243 can do, the .308 can do also with a bit heavier bullet. But with some of the new .243 match loads that are coming out, it could make a very good mid range sniper rifle.

  78. What about using a Law Tactical AR Folding Stock Adapter with a collapsible stock and 16″ barrel.

  79. I agree.

    The 175 gr. 7.62×51 is a reliable, accurate and predictable round out to 1100 yards.

    It is perfect in the compact sniper rifle role.

  80. POF .308s suck. They jam like a SoaB. Their barrels are ideal though. They are fairly light, and super dense keeping them cooler, more accurate and more durable.

  81. Capt. Paul Kozloski | August 7, 2012 at 12:32 pm | Reply

    In Vietnam in 1970 the M-16 issued to the 101st was so poor, I carried a Kar 15 with a fold in stock. This weapon was great and all scopes could be mounted. Why spend more money, just make it adjustable provided we have any in mothball.

    Good Luck,
    Capt. P.K.

  82. Remember back in the sixties when they were rearming the Army from everything from the basic rifle to the LMG. The problem with the people testing the weapons was that peacetime firing conditions differ dramatically from wartime. I remember putting thousands of rounds through my m60 until the bipod turned white and slowly began to melt, yes, I said melt! The bipod bent. the Mi6 and most of the "new" equipment was garbage. Even the APCs were soft as butter and could be easily penetrated by heavy caliber ordinance. Thank goodness, through combat testing we eventually ended up with a decent line of weapons and equipment.

  83. 18 inch LaRue OBR with 5.5 – 22 x 50 Nightforce. Nuff said.

  84. *Have any of you ever heard of the BM-59 Tanker model by Beretta? Had a folding stock option shorter barrel and M-14 Action! Very accurate out of the box. Why re-invent the wheel?

    SGT CAMPELLONE 199TH LT INF HQHQ 3rd/ 7th 1966 till 9171.

  86. Sundance.
    Ever heard of the AR-10? Why import a wheel?

  87. FormerSFMedic | August 7, 2012 at 4:07 pm | Reply

    That 5.5-22×50 Nightforce would be a step back. It's certainly not ideal for many applications for the compact sniper rifle. Agree on the OBR though, however with a 16" barrel.

  88. Keep The M-14!! Most Durable & Accurate!!!

  89. Why do you say a 16" barrel is more appropriate? I can understand for CQB but if you going for distance then you want the longer barrel and a sniper weapon should never be employed at any range less then 1,000 meters. The standard infantry soldier should be able to accurately engage targets out to 1,000 meters and leave anything else to the sniper. A collapsible stock is nice but again should only be reserved for CQB operations the sniper weapon should be custom built to the shooter with a fixed stock to reduce noise from the collapsible stock rattling around. A collapsible stock to me is one of the worse inventions ever, I have one on both of my AK-47s and am thinking of throwing the stocks in the fireplace where they belong, uncomfortable and noisy both traits are bad in combat. But then I do hate the M-16/M-4s with a passion and think the military did a disfavor by adopting them over the M-1/M-14 yeah sure they're heavy but there ain't nothing better for knock down and stopping power.

  90. I think that if the Gov. is going to spend all kinds of money that they should try designing
    A weapon that will shoot something other than a bullit. We have been shooting bullits
    for hundreds of years. With a little bit of brain power they can design a differant means
    of projectile , with the same accuracy and better distance, Mybe this weapon could be capable of holding 1000 rounds or better, and the marksmen could carry 4 or 5 (1 000) round clips. Who knows mybe they already have something in the making..

  91. SFC W.J. Oakley (Ret | August 8, 2012 at 6:26 pm | Reply

    If the want a shorter more compact sniper rifle, they need to start with something like a match grade M14. Remove the stock and mount the action into a "bullpup" design stock.
    It allows you to reduce the overall length and still maintain a full length barrel. Then they can add whatever else they need to quite easily.

  92. Diego Blanchard | August 9, 2012 at 4:54 am | Reply

    I must agree with a possible BullPup Type of semi auto rifle. They are much less prone to Kick back. They also are able to configure one with a barrel length that will not interfere with accuracy. I have always felt that for under 1,000 yards a 223/5.56 Type round with a heavier powder load might be a good choice. However I am no expert and far from it. The most used long range rifle is the 50 caliber, No? Then we have the bolt action Remington 700 series in different set up's. All with 7.62 I think.
    But what they are looking for now is and could be a combination of the M1A1 yet with a BullPup action. I don't know how likely that would be at all. I do know that I not only prefer the Garand action on any rifle I have always felt it is less likely to jam under most combat situations. Well I guess that's all I can say again not knowing all that much about these things. All I can add is that I hope the ARMY finds the "Right Stuff" On this one and not a piece of crap that will later cause problems for the solder. Like the M16-A1 Or A2 I was issued as a recruit in 1982.

  93. I agree with you thoroughly, to bad it is not shorter for closer quarters!

  94. Wrong caliber, 5.56 vs. 7.62, and has a fixed stock as opposed to a collapsible stock.

  95. If people like Taxpayer had their way we'd still be using Springfield 1903s, wearing woolen uniforms, steel pots on our heads, and we'd walk into every battle and haul everything using horses and mule drawn carriages.

  96. The AR Folding Stock Adapter could solve a lot of the size issues .

  97. there are off the shelf options from LMT and Larue that would suffice nicely. ****, even knights armament has a shortened SR25! talk about reinventing the wheel LOL

  98. The M-14 is far more reliable and as if not ALOT more accurate than the German G-3 was. The M-14 also was better fit. the G-3 was made for 7.92×33 and was stretched to 7.62 NATO and is awkwardly long and heavy. Recoil is alot worse on a G-3. While some may say the M-14 was out of date before it was adopted strange that Over a dozen nations use them. It beat all European designs in accuracy test and we better than the 50s era AR-10s which had major heating problems on auto fire.

    We can argue over AR-10 vs M-14 sure but leave the vendetta you got against the M-14 over you FAL. M-14s solder on FALs have largely died off the worlds combat arms with only a few third world nations using it.

  99. @Troopersmith

    "Wow someone else who thinks I don’t know what I’m talking about"

    Joshua has established his reputation on this blog; I can repost a couple of his other posts, if you like. I have no idea who you are.

    "I’ve only had one and the 7.62 should be the standard for every trooper that way you save money on ammo only having to buy one type of ammo only translates into cheaper operating costs. There I just put a real weapon in the hands of our troops and cut the cost of supplying them to."

    Not only that, but you have just decreased the amount of ammo each trooper can carry, decreased the hit probability by decreasing the number of rounds that will be fired at the enemy, and saddled undertrained soldiers with a weapon that requires even more skill to hit stuff with. That, and you will have to issue the soldiers something to go with their 7.62 mm. battle rifles for when they conduct MOUT operations.

    "If you want to go cheaper then start getting AKs and make the 7.62×39 the standard caliber and as for them not being accurate you just need to learn how to shoot better because I can get a 1-2 inch group at 300 yards…"

    Sorry, but our military will NEVER buy AKs, and especially not in 7.62×39. Not happening. Also, accuracy depends alot on the shooter, and all AKs are not made alike.

    "in semi auto which is the only way our troops should be shooting there shouldn’t be any 3rd burst or full auto in the standard infantry weapon that’s just a waste of ammo."

    3-rd. burst probably is useless, though I have read of it being used in combat. Full-auto is just another tool in the box; probably won't need it, but it is still useful for just in case.

    Finally, please use some punctuation. I want to read your posts, but the lack of punctuation makes it harder for me to follow…….

  100. Oh yeah and those stoppages I've had with my M16A2 range from double feeds to stovepipes and the ejector sticking so don't tell me the M16s and M4s are reliable as for the AK my daily run into town weapon has only been cleaned once in 15 years and my other weapon has been cleaned once a year for the last 10 years both function perfectly. The only problem I've had with my M-1 was because the 70 year old firing pin decided to break. I'm sorry but the 5.56 and all it's kin are junk and no one is going to change my mind about it. I heard about the testing phase of the M-16 they had to rig the tests to make it pass. Why would anyone want a weapon with such a dishonorable history?

  101. Trooper Smith I am with You. Semper Fi. THe Zombies do not have a Clue.

  102. @Troopersmith
    Why would we want to eliminate something that has almost no effect on the war-fighter or his effectiveness other than giving him/her more experience and knowledge?
    Proper range estimation is a very important part of a sniper setting up for a shot and making it just a little more important will ONLY make our snipers better (not saying they are bad).
    And regardless about what you think of your M1 or your training, anything can ALWAYS be better.

  103. nobody is adopting the M1 or another M14 variant. get that idea out of your head. The sun has set for those weapons being used for a military application.

    They are awesome shooting rifles, dont get me wrong. Perhaps if a asiatic empire invades north america, you can grab your M1 and head for the mountains. ;)

  104. Neither is anybody adopting your beloved FAL anymore. 7.62 NATO weapons out sider of sniper rifles are passay and no one wants them, The AR-10 is the only one selling and not for a assault rifle but for marksman. And the sun isnt set on the M-14 the navy uses them and im not talking about SEALs who also use them. The M-110 is not going to to be a DMR anytime soon budget crunch will stop most arms projects outside of NIE and JLTV. The EBR is popular and will last at least for a another several years.

    I know you hate the M-14 with a vengeance and just hate all none FN weapons. But The fact is the M-14 will solder on for a few more decades in various small catches. The FAL had its heyday but is overall is gone into the past no one is adopting FALs either.

    Iam a M-14 fan and see it soldering on, for the navy. But the AR-10 is a good weapon too. As a sniper rifle its going to be popular for a long time.

  105. And your way off again pal. Your FALs and G-3s have been replaced for years around the world by M-16s AUGs FNCs G-36s ect. Your FAL has been replaced by 5.56mm weapons 90% of the worlds armies. No army has adopted the HK 417 and only a small number of SOCOM units bought SCARs, which the L and H model has no major foreign sales. The M-110 was not a M-14 replacement and was to replace and failed to do so the M-24 SWS. Still when you see the news or any SOCOM related material in MARSOC and SEALs M-14s are still around. You fail to state too that Navy has and will use M-14 for many years to come for ship security. And I been around M-14s for years they are not a pain to maintain they are alot better than a SAW or other infantry arms. You can argue a M-4/M-16 may be easier to clean but that's it.

    As for foreign nations the Baltic states the Philippines, South Korea Columbia Taiwan all still use there M-14s for sniper and DM roles as well.

    I can only count 5 nations who still use FALs most have been replaced by 5.56mm weapons.

  106. God have mercy on my soul… First, Army basically says we want something that looks like an M4 to fool the insurgent into thinking they all are carrying aforementioned M4 and not carrying something with some real bang. Why our favorite jihadist can’t tell that one M4 looks bigger than the others, I’m not real sure.

    This leaves out my M14. For all you haters remember it has been around for a long, long time in one form or variation. These aren’t your average rack grade rifles found in the locker of my old sub or oceanographic ship. Tuned properly it is as accurate as anything out there. A simple trip to camp Perry will back that up. It has been the base for two sniper versions, the M21 and the M25. Also the guy who wants to put it in a bullpup is late to that party, been done a couple time already. M89SR and AWC G2, oh both were built for snipers. Guess we should be able to put a way any talk of lack of accuracy, except for the die hard hater.

    Next 7.62×51 is not the best round in the word. But guess what, there is no real best round in the world. If you were to pick a distance, you can probably find at least two better cartridges for that distance checking ballistic tables. There are hundreds different rounds out there including wildcats, can’t carry all of them. The 7.62 is generally a decent compromise for a wide area out to 800 meters, yes a good sniper can stretch that. The services have been working on improvements of basic ammo for these weapons. M59 or M80 not the first pick for most looking for that long shot now. Today we have M118 and variants along with MK 316, M852. The Brits even have their pet rounds for their weapons. So as we look at the 7.62×51 we see quite a bit of data from 175 grain to 168 and 147 that cover a lot of area with a known performance history.

    So what the Army wants it will probably get. It will be a Stoner style rifle with 16 inch barrel in 7.62x51mm. God knows our troops can’t figure out how to manipulate any other type of rifle. (That is sarcasm). Held back, but finally my 2 pennies in.

  107. You know what, he's right. We need to go back to the basics, but even this semi – auto crap is too advanced. We need to start reissuing the Springfield for standard troops. Bolt actions are the real way to fight!

  108. FormerSFMedic is there a link or someway I could possibly contact you?

  109. @E. Ronc

    So how is the M14 better than whatever AR variant the Army will end up with? The AR has always been known for accuracy; it will easily match the accuracy of the M14. It makes sense to me to standardize your DMR/semi-auto SPR with your standard issue infantry rifle for a variety of reasons.

    Not trying to pick a fight, I really do want to understand your take on it…..

  110. I can agree Joshua M-110 is a good weapon. Not debating that. I can garentee its going to be either KAC or Remington to make new M-110E1s and I do know regular M-110 will be around as well.

    @E.ronic I agree the M-14s at Camp Perry are not the same as the ones our father carried in Vietnam. The Navy versions too are kept and accurised and so very accurate.

  111. "The main reason me and other brought up M-14s is that you kept on trashing it and saying how we needed M-110 with a short barrel to replace them."

    The reason he kept "trashing it" (i call it highlighting its disadvantages) is because certain people on here keep mentioning brining back the M14 for sniping duty and certain bullpup "enhancements" (dare i use that word) to the M14. What Im saying is that the M14's sun has set. There are other superior platforms out there and its time to move on.

    The M14 does need replacing. It is time for the army to drop its interim solution to the designated marksman rifle and adopt something fitting for the 21st century that is already compatible with the M110 already in service.

    "Others and my self who shot them longer than you’ve been running your mouth say they are NOT a bad weapon and are not that horrible to maintain."

    Thats a bold statement. Indicating by what ive read, the critics of the M14 know damn well what they're talking about.

    Nobody is saying its a "bad" weapon. The M1 garand is also not a "bad" weapon. Its just not fitting for our time. Lance, I can guarantee I know far more about the M14 platform that you do. Have you ever maintained such weapons in Afghanistan or Iraq? they are a pain in the ***. Certainly not impossible to master, though they have their unique set of rules you have to abide by, or you will have unreliable weapons (which happens a lot).

    "Strange I could clean my M-14 faster than my A2 rifle. As far as your wish to discuss companies to retrofit M-110 everyone knows its going to be between LMT KAC and Remington since they did all the AR-10 work for US and NATO nations for years."

    Then you are not cleaning your M14 right, thats all i can say. And who cares if its between LMT, KAC, and Remington? who else has the capability to produce accurate AR10s for the military?

  112. 6.5 Grendel is wonderful, you can even use the lower from the M-4

    problem solved

  113. Hey Medic, I heard through the rumor mill that come this november the Army js going to have a big announcement about the IC. From what I hear we may have a new rifle.

    I have way to confirm this though, any thoughts?

    Eta: this is purely speculation about something I heard from someone, this is not my thoughts or words.

  114. Hay Joshua

    Email me whats this about November and IC? Is M-4 PiP going well???

  115. I do agree Joshua that the Mk-17 is adopted and used by some SOCOM personnel. I was just saying it hasn't replaced all other weapons used. I do say fort a CQB 7.62mm rifle the Mk-17 once it can take AR-10 mags would be a good weapon. (Sorry the modified FAL mags are hard to find.)

    Overall I do agree with you overall the M-4A1 killed the Mk-16 not due to that they have similar performance but M-4s are more economical.

  116. Why should it be a 7.62 rounder? Can't they use the "BEOWULF" with little modifications like using tripods and good scope?

  117. Looks like France will go with a AR design rifle. Whats your thoughts? Whats your rumors of IC?? Hows M-4 PIP doing?



  119. Hi Josh I need to chat on M-4 PIP please email me Lance ****@****.*** soon pls.

  120. Found another fun article for you pls check it out.

  121. more on the M110A1 here
    Honestly a FA is not needed. If your rifle is having issues chambering a round bashing it in is usually not a good idea.

  122. I agree with you about the M-14 being a very capable rifle. The problem the military is facing is that they are running out of spare parts for them. They are a sweet rifle, a little on the heavy side, but nearly unstoppable with its gas piston system. The AR-10 is the way to go for this new contract. In my opinion the GA Precision GAP10 is about as good as it gets. Since we know the military is not going to stray from the .308 cartridge, then the AR10 is the best platform.

  123. I have to completely disagree with you on your above comments. There is no way the US standard issued infantry rifles (M4 carbine and M16 rifle) could ever be effective past 600 meters. That is MAX range for the bullet to be fired somewhat accurately. At that range you are not going to have anywhere near enough energy to kill a person with a 55/62gr 5.56 round. Nor are you going to be accurate due to the pore ammo the military issues. It is very sad that the US military is still using the 5.56 cartilage as its standard infantry round. The advance in ballistics for carbine sized rifles has developed so many deadlier rounds. You would think with the conflicts we have faced in the past 20 years, and troops having to engage targets at much longer ranges we would have switched to a much heavier and accurate round by now.

  124. The whole point of this is not to have it for SNIPERS. The reason they are looking for a collapsable stock and the other modifications is to be used with squad and platoon movements. The article clearly states that it will be utilized by Squad Designated Marksmen. Therefore, being that they will be utilized in such a manner they need to be light weight and carriable by a squad element. The SDM is “Counter-Sniper” to an extent. They have more training than you would get just from Basic Rifle Marksmanship, but not nearly to the extent of a Sniper. More attention to details of the article than just giving an opinion of a brand and whatever set up you may own may produce much more relevant discussion.

  125. I think M110 is overpriced vs the SCAR H or LMT for what you get, but I was never a sniper. I think the M-14 should be replaced by the SCAR H or LMT because they are more accurate from what I have seen at the range, weigh less, and are not that expensive vs M110 – think tax payer dollars. My SCAR 17 shoots 1-2 MOA with German DAG and I have shot 1 MOA with an LMT before it jammed from Pakistani surplus. I love the AK and would take it over an M4 – I could never qualify expert with M4 in the Army, but could do it the full size M16 which I actually like better. AKs are 2.5-5 MOA from benchrest so I am not saying they are highly accurate, just reliable and the round goes thru cover better /vehicles which for support troops, contractors / non 11B is fine. Yes- there is a large variety of AKs and I find Russian, Bulgarian, and Polish very reliable. I think 11B Army Infantry should have M16A4s like the Marines but again I like what an 7.62×39 or 7.62×51 can do to a car, especially if at a checkpoint. I have seen the M14 / M110 used in a combat zone in OIF / Al Anbar province (2005) with 1-5 Marines and 2nd ID and the M14 seemed very heavy and old and the soldier was not in love his rifle either. I have only seen the M14 EBR at a gun show and it seemed ridiculous heavy. The Marine snipers I met liked the M110, but I don't understand why it is 2x the cost of the LMT. I vote for SCAR H to replace the M14 because of the cost, accuracy, ease of cleaning, and weight. The SCAR H would be great for overwatch and to stop cars at checkpoints as it is more of a lightweight battle rifle that can fill in for DMR work. As for it not looking like an M4 – does it matter? I mean M14 is different from an M4. I still can't get over the Army moving to ACUs, thank God I had DCUs, but that is another topic. I do not think the SCAR H can match the M110 for accuracy, but I think the LMT / MK20 might be close and are half the cost, (I did not price check the MK20 before writing this-made my statement based off the SCAR H). Again- I am not 18x or 11x and I am no longer in the military – I just don't get why M110 is 2x the price.

  126. I dont get this argument that the 6.8 is equivalent to the .308… doesnt the simple ballistic comparisons between the two rounds denote that the .308 is superior?

    Scroll down and find the chart…

  127. I say "pick your battles."Howabout pressure to keep the A10 tank killer which is very effective for the grunt on the ground? The air forceshoulfKEEP it as well as the C-130 as they both work.Enough of wasted money and years of development of iffy or failing systems.Rememberwhat IKE warned about the military Industrial complex.At best they waste our tax dollars at worst they can get good men killed .Sorry if I am off topic here,but is near to my heart cause our guys are still out there.The preceding were my own thoughts.But Ike was right.We need Him back again .

  128. why not use the m14 juggernaut

  129. Oh, for heaven's sake.
    Stop spending money, and use what we have! The M14 in a Sage EBR stock will do the job nicely. Or, if they just HAVE to have a shorter 7.62 carbine, just get an upper with a 16 inch barrel. Oh, and you want a higher rate of fire? AND sub-MOA accuracy? Sorry, but those two are not too compatible. Stop trying to make your snipers into general duty Infantrymen, and stop trying to make every Infantryman a sniper. USE WHAT WE HAVE!!!!

  130. Raymond l. murray | January 26, 2014 at 12:21 am | Reply

    Well there is a company in Montana Named Nemo that is making 300win. mag in a ar platform 10 shot semi auto. Barrell size 24, 20 , 18. They claim the recoil is less then 308 ar. Ray

  131. Really 7.62 / 308 come on, that is such old technology. No go with the 6.5 Grendel better ballistics in a AR-15 format 8 pounds. Has far less wind drift good out to 1200 meters on a 20 in barrel and flatter then then 7.62 hits harder the 7.52 after 600 yards with 6 LB less recoil for follow up shots if needed. bullet is like a arrow 2 inch long in 95 to 144 grain rounds. This is a real 21 century round. Also a great penetrator round too trust me. I have one and there's noting this universal round can't do. It kills everything it hits , 400lb elk at 400 yards, 1000Lb buffalo one shot, wild boars, men though cars (see future weapons) , etc. I know but, if you don't believe a owner, go check out YouTube look for 6.5 Grendel. O'll and all you need is a Clip and Upper, scope for the existing M4 , M16's and would have the rifle of the future cost noting compared to new ones..

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.