Improved US M24 Sniper Rifle to See Testing in Spring

#1
Sniper Rifle to See Testing in Spring
March 09, 2010
Army News Service|by C. Todd Lopez

Candidates for an improved version of the Army's sniper rifle -- the M-24 -- are expected to go into testing this spring after industry reveals their efforts this month.

Industry was challenged to improve the M-24 sniper rifle, a weapon that has been in service since the 1980s, to make it more accurate and to make it more adjustable to the Soldier's needs, said Col. Douglas A. Tamilio, project manager, Soldier Weapons.

"So the Soldier, the sniper, can conform it to his body -- we'll have an adjustable stock, adjustable cheek welds," Tamilio said. "This weapons system has a five-round internal magazine. We're asking industry to do something better -- five-to-ten round external magazines."

The Army has also asked industry to improve the scope for the M-24, and that means zoom from 3x to 25x magnification, with a reticle that adjusts when the user changes magnification. Also, he said, add Picatinny rails for mounting sensors and optics.

The M-24 now is chambered for a 7.62mm round with a range to about 800 meters, Tamilio said. But he added that when the Army designed the weapon, it also accommodated a larger round, the .300 Win Mag. He said the improved M-24 will take advantage of that capability in order to realize greater accuracy.

It's expected the four industry competitors will supply their four improved M-24 candidates by March 11. Those will go into competitive tests in the spring. The Army will down select to a producer in the summer, and start fielding the improved M-24 to Army snipers in the fall.

Improving the M-24 will involve turning existing weapons over to a contractor and modifying that weapon. It's expected that turnaround time for that process will be 30 days.

http://www.military.com/news/articl...-see-testing-in-spring.html?col=1186032369115
 
#2
No matter how much they fcuk about with it it's a Remington 700. Go and buy a proper sniper rifle. I did. :D
 
#3
I thought they had the M111 for that ? Well that's what that hard b@st@rd on Future Weapons was wielding the last time I looked on YouTube.......
 
#6
Jiblit said:
Bone reply but, whats so special about the Picatinnty rail :?
It permits the user to "ally up" his firestick and thus impress his mates back home.



 
#7
misterp said:
looks like 7.62 x 51 hasn't got enough punch at long range.
It's more the case that it loses accuracy at longer ranges. At around 1000m it goes transonic, that is drops back through the sound barrier and this transition is generally associated with a major drop off in accuracy.

338 Lapua Magnum as used in the new British Sniper Rifle stays supersonic a bit further so gives accuracy out to slightly longer ranges.

Either round will travel up to five miles but it'll be dropping out of the sky with little residual energy at that range.

Consider that GPMG has sights out to 1800m and the ballistically similar (slightly superior) 303 was expected to be lethal out to 3000 yards and you get an idea of what range the round will kill at, it just isn't accurate enough to hit a figure target/ person.
 
#8
An possibly bone observation from a total civilian but it seems that the powers that be are constantly changing sniper calibre's to suit whatever theatre of operations are in play or what seems to be the current flavour of the month.

There seems to be some kind of fascination with the "1,000 metre" shot in sniping, but, the majority of books that I have read seem to talk of shots at much shorter ranges than that.

Just how common are ranges in excess of 1,000 metres? I can understand that in Afghanistan there may be shots taken well over that range but I also suspect that the average contact takes place well under that where the 7.62 x 51 would appear to be sufficient.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise though. :)
 
#9
BaronBoy said:
An possibly bone observation from a total civilian but it seems that the powers that be are constantly changing sniper calibre's to suit whatever theatre of operations are in play or what seems to be the current flavour of the month.

There seems to be some kind of fascination with the "1,000 metre" shot in sniping, but, the majority of books that I have read seem to talk of shots at much shorter ranges than that.

Just how common are ranges in excess of 1,000 metres? I can understand that in Afghanistan there may be shots taken well over that range but I also suspect that the average contact takes place well under that where the 7.62 x 51 would appear to be sufficient.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise though. :)
Couple of points; first is that if a target of opportunity presents itself beyond 1000m what do you do if the weapon you have is marginal at that range? As has been mentioned 7.62 x 51 goes transonic at around 1000m (depending on temp, pressure or alt).

Second point is that there may be need to destroy or incapacitate material or there may be need for good penetration prior if your tgt is behind cover (think of someone behind a couple of sandbags at 1400m and what a 250 grain .338LM will do to both sandbags and tgt, for example).
 
#10
BaronBoy said:
An possibly bone observation from a total civilian but it seems that the powers that be are constantly changing sniper calibre's to suit whatever theatre of operations are in play or what seems to be the current flavour of the month.

There seems to be some kind of fascination with the "1,000 metre" shot in sniping, but, the majority of books that I have read seem to talk of shots at much shorter ranges than that.

Just how common are ranges in excess of 1,000 metres? I can understand that in Afghanistan there may be shots taken well over that range but I also suspect that the average contact takes place well under that where the 7.62 x 51 would appear to be sufficient.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise though. :)
Not really. Sniping in the modern sense began in the First World War with 303, this was changed for 7.62 from 1970 and that in turn was superseded by .338LM from 2008.

303 - 55~ years
7.62 - 38~ years
338 LM - ?

Not exactly constant change.....

The US experience is similar going from 30-06 to 7.62 and now either 338LM or 300 Win Mag (why? :? )
 
#11
.338lapua_magnum said:
BaronBoy said:
An possibly bone observation from a total civilian but it seems that the powers that be are constantly changing sniper calibre's to suit whatever theatre of operations are in play or what seems to be the current flavour of the month.

There seems to be some kind of fascination with the "1,000 metre" shot in sniping, but, the majority of books that I have read seem to talk of shots at much shorter ranges than that.

Just how common are ranges in excess of 1,000 metres? I can understand that in Afghanistan there may be shots taken well over that range but I also suspect that the average contact takes place well under that where the 7.62 x 51 would appear to be sufficient.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise though. :)
Couple of points; first is that if a target of opportunity presents itself beyond 1000m what do you do if the weapon you have is marginal at that range? As has been mentioned 7.62 x 51 goes transonic at around 1000m (depending on temp, pressure or alt).

Second point is that there may be need to destroy or incapacitate material or there may be need for good penetration prior if your tgt is behind cover (think of someone behind a couple of sandbags at 1400m and what a 250 grain .338LM will do to both sandbags and tgt, for example).
I would think 338 LM would struggle with that task at that range. What is your experience?
 
#12
EX_STAB said:
No matter how much they fcuk about with it it's a Remington 700. Go and buy a proper sniper rifle. I did. :D
Funny that the US Army M24 and USMC M40 are Rem 700's and they dont seem to kvetch about it's design, just the add ons.
 
#13
the USMC m40 is rebuilt at there armory by gun nuts I'd imagine theirs probably better on the market in the states than a rehashed m24
 
#14
brighton hippy said:
the USMC m40 is rebuilt at there armory by gun nuts I'd imagine theirs probably better on the market in the states than a rehashed m24
There's always better than a Remington 700. Even the accurised ones are nasty. I know. I've got one in the cupboard.
 
#15
EX_STAB said:
.338lapua_magnum said:
BaronBoy said:
An possibly bone observation from a total civilian but it seems that the powers that be are constantly changing sniper calibre's to suit whatever theatre of operations are in play or what seems to be the current flavour of the month.

There seems to be some kind of fascination with the "1,000 metre" shot in sniping, but, the majority of books that I have read seem to talk of shots at much shorter ranges than that.

Just how common are ranges in excess of 1,000 metres? I can understand that in Afghanistan there may be shots taken well over that range but I also suspect that the average contact takes place well under that where the 7.62 x 51 would appear to be sufficient.

I am willing to be convinced otherwise though. :)
Couple of points; first is that if a target of opportunity presents itself beyond 1000m what do you do if the weapon you have is marginal at that range? As has been mentioned 7.62 x 51 goes transonic at around 1000m (depending on temp, pressure or alt).

Second point is that there may be need to destroy or incapacitate material or there may be need for good penetration prior if your tgt is behind cover (think of someone behind a couple of sandbags at 1400m and what a 250 grain .338LM will do to both sandbags and tgt, for example).
I would think 338 LM would struggle with that task at that range. What is your experience?
Doing the numbers with my own pet load gives me 1112 fps and 687 foot pounds of energy at that range at sea level. At 3000ft above sea level I get a velocity of approx 1500fps and 1258 foot pounds (guessing the pressure).
I am going out the back just now to try both. I will put a sandbag(s) out at 1400m and give it a go. I will also hit a sandbag at a range that will give me 1500fps (to compare). No guarantee that I will hit the bags but its a light wind day (less that 10Kt) out there just now so heres hoping.
 
#16
EX_STAB

I should have been clearer.

My comments were meant to apply only to recent years when sniping seems to have "come in from the cold" and is no longer regarded as "the dark art" by senior officers.

In fact, there now seems to be some inordinate fascination with the skill that seems to be approaching the levels previously enjoyed by "them".

Anyway, bring on the results please.
 
#17
Well that took a bit more work than expected! Only sandbags I could get hold of were the plastic type as used by the fire brigade and I could only get hold of 20. Pinched a table from work to support a sheet of ply and made a wall of bags filled with dry sand not packed down. Yes, I know that they should be but I was filling the bl**dy things. Met conditions as follows: temp 10.3 C, pressure 1029hPa using a calibrated PAB, humidity 96%. Test carried out at sea level with a northerly wind up to 11Kt. First test was carried out at 950m to simulate conditions at approximately 3000ft elevation. All ranging done with a swaro laser rangefinder with multiple zaps to confirm range. Velocity should be about 1500fps at that range. Load is a 250 grain lock base out of a TRG 42.

Five shots fired, all hit the bags. One was a central hit. All penetrated totally, no bullets recovered.

Now the fun started. Moved back to 1400m. Had problems identifying fall of shot (daughter was spotting). Eventually I got a confirmed hit when the table collapsed dropping all the bags. One bag took a hit from what I recon was a ricochet from the sand in front. Bullet keyholed and stayed in the bag. Another hit a bag high and penetrated totally. This is not totally accurate as the track appears to have gone between two bags. I also wrecked one of the legs on the table which is now buggered. At that range with todays weather the bullets should have been transonic at about 1300 to 1340m

Anyway, it was quite good fun. I now have to buy the Local authority a bottle of whisky and I have to explain to the boss how I wrecked his table. Not a scientific test by any means and the bags were not hard packed as they should be. Also if it were a low sanger rather than a carefully built pile to maximise the target area, I would have been struggling. Next time I will keep my gob shut. :D

Edit to add: I am not going to say how many shots I had to fire at 1400m but I am now off to do some reloading. :wink:
 
#18
.338lapua_magnum said:
Well that took a bit more work than expected! Only sandbags I could get hold of were the plastic type as used by the fire brigade and I could only get hold of 20. Pinched a table from work to support a sheet of ply and made a wall of bags filled with dry sand not packed down. Yes, I know that they should be but I was filling the bl**dy things. Met conditions as follows: temp 10.3 C, pressure 1029hPa using a calibrated PAB, humidity 96%. Test carried out at sea level with a northerly wind up to 11Kt. First test was carried out at 950m to simulate conditions at approximately 3000ft elevation. All ranging done with a swaro laser rangefinder with multiple zaps to confirm range. Velocity should be about 1500fps at that range. Load is a 250 grain lock base out of a TRG 42.

Five shots fired, all hit the bags. One was a central hit. All penetrated totally, no bullets recovered.

Now the fun started. Moved back to 1400m. Had problems identifying fall of shot (daughter was spotting). Eventually I got a confirmed hit when the table collapsed dropping all the bags. One bag took a hit from what I recon was a ricochet from the sand in front. Bullet keyholed and stayed in the bag. Another hit a bag high and penetrated totally. This is not totally accurate as the track appears to have gone between two bags. I also wrecked one of the legs on the table which is now buggered. At that range with todays weather the bullets should have been transonic at about 1300 to 1340m

Anyway, it was quite good fun. I now have to buy the Local authority a bottle of whisky and I have to explain to the boss how I wrecked his table. Not a scientific test by any means and the bags were not hard packed as they should be. Also if it were a low sanger rather than a carefully built pile to maximise the target area, I would have been struggling. Next time I will keep my gob shut. :D
You are a star! Excellent work.

So somebody in a sangar of two deep sandbags needs to be afraid of one of our snipers at 1400m. Very interesting result!
 
#19
Sandbags were only laid out longways, not two deep. I did not have enough to build a proper wall; plus i probably would never have hit the damn thing. Also got some funny looks from those enjoying the evening.
 
#20
EX_STAB said:
Not really. Sniping in the modern sense began in the First World War with 303, this was changed for 7.62 from 1970 and that in turn was superseded by .338LM from 2008.

303 - 55~ years
7.62 - 38~ years
338 LM - ?

Not exactly constant change.....

The US experience is similar going from 30-06 to 7.62 and now either 338LM or 300 Win Mag (why? :? )
I'll defer to your technical knowledge - but the last Brit killed in NI was hit by a .50" from a Barret, designed after Grenada, IIRC, and enjoying great popularity in South Asia for its 2km lethal accurate range.

Shouldn't that be on the list?

Edited to add (at the risk of picking nits): if sniping started in WW1 - what about the Boers, 20 years earlier?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads