View Full Version : M110
wild_wild_wes
10-14-11, 23:20
How is the M110 doing now that is in widespread service? There was a lot of talk about dissatisfaction with it in its initial service; what is the opinion now?
deadlyfire
10-14-11, 23:59
It has been performing well from what I understand. Last complaint I heard from our sniper section leader was directed at the KAC suppressor.
I have extensive experience with the M110. No complaints here. Great platform. We had two of them issued.
We could not get them to group quite as well as the M24's, but accuracy was still outstanding (1-1.5 MOA). The ability to have a suppressed, precision, semi-automatic sniper system far outweighs the marginal accuracy disadvantage.
Many of the complaints stemmed from people who were pulling boresnakes with CLP on them through the bores, and expecting that to be good enough. CLP does nothing to remove copper buildup and is insufficient in this application. 3,000 rounds down the barrel with nothing but an occasional boresnake and CLP is going to lead to poor accuracy.
For whatever reason, the Army would not allow a proper solvent to be issued with the 110's. But, people are getting smarter. We went ahead and acquired our own supply of Shooters Choice solvent (the one that KAC recommends). Cleaned properly with a good one piece rod and bore guide, the barrel performs.
Also, KAC's recommendations as far as replacement intervals on the bolt etc. were not being followed. People were just shooting them to death, ignoring the recommendations, then complaining.
But, again, the Army as a whole is learning from it and these issues are becoming less and less prevalent.
One thing I have never understood about the military. Why on earth can some people not get it through their brains that CLP is a marginal lubrication at best and it doesn't nothing for copper build up. Hell, I don't even know how effective it really is against carbon to be honest.
In any event if you are shooting an accurized weapon like the M110 personnel should have the ability to use a good carbon remover and copper solvent. I hate to see troops have to buy it from their own pockets, but so be it.
I have extensive experience with the M110. No complaints here. Great platform. We had two of them issued.
We could not get them to group quite as well as the M24's, but accuracy was still outstanding (1-1.5 MOA). The ability to have a suppressed, precision, semi-automatic sniper system far outweighs the marginal accuracy disadvantage.
Many of the complaints stemmed from people who were pulling boresnakes with CLP on them through the bores, and expecting that to be good enough. CLP does nothing to remove copper buildup and is insufficient in this application. 3,000 rounds down the barrel with nothing but an occasional boresnake and CLP is going to lead to poor accuracy.
For whatever reason, the Army would not allow a proper solvent to be issued with the 110's. But, people are getting smarter. We went ahead and acquired our own supply of Shooters Choice solvent (the one that KAC recommends). Cleaned properly with a good one piece rod and bore guide, the barrel performs.
Also, KAC's recommendations as far as replacement intervals on the bolt etc. were not being followed. People were just shooting them to death, ignoring the recommendations, then complaining.
But, again, the Army as a whole is learning from it and these issues are becoming less and less prevalent.
I've witnessed it be accurate to minute-of-forehead on a target moving at the speed of motorcycle.
It was ****ing awesome :dance3:
I have extensive experience with the M110. No complaints here. Great platform. We had two of them issued.
We could not get them to group quite as well as the M24's, but accuracy was still outstanding (1-1.5 MOA). The ability to have a suppressed, precision, semi-automatic sniper system far outweighs the marginal accuracy disadvantage.
Many of the complaints stemmed from people who were pulling boresnakes with CLP on them through the bores, and expecting that to be good enough. CLP does nothing to remove copper buildup and is insufficient in this application. 3,000 rounds down the barrel with nothing but an occasional boresnake and CLP is going to lead to poor accuracy.
For whatever reason, the Army would not allow a proper solvent to be issued with the 110's. But, people are getting smarter. We went ahead and acquired our own supply of Shooters Choice solvent (the one that KAC recommends). Cleaned properly with a good one piece rod and bore guide, the barrel performs.
Also, KAC's recommendations as far as replacement intervals on the bolt etc. were not being followed. People were just shooting them to death, ignoring the recommendations, then complaining.
But, again, the Army as a whole is learning from it and these issues are becoming less and less prevalent.
Amazing how the Army will spend big bucks on weapons, then refuse to follow the recommended maintenance schedule.
Amazing how the Army will spend big bucks on weapons, then refuse to follow the recommended maintenance schedule.
Yeah. Surprisingly, the Air Force seems to be much better at this. I'm guessing that's what your background is. The same can be said of commo equipment. Can't tell you how many antennas etc. I've had to borrow from you guys.
Disclaimer - I'm not an end user but I was on the BN staff in an IBCT (RC-E / CJTF-82nd) when we got the M110. There were mixed reviews from my BN's snipers during the initial fielding 2 years ago (I believe that we had 3 of them). They had trouble keeping them on line with no downrange support. Accuracy was not a complaint, but some reported a mixture of trigger and reliability problems.
The Smith Enterprise M14's and other "accurized" M14 variants were the fallback which seemed to be slightly better received but it also suffered the same issue of downrange support. The M14 also suffered from poor train up since it was more of a stop-gap.
To be fair, the M110 seems to be doing much better on this deployment. Having said that, the new generation of SR25's (including the SR25-EMC) does everything that the M110 does, but does it better. IMHO, the M110 was obsolete the day it was fielded due to the improvements in the SR25 lineup and the emergence of the OBR.
parishioner
10-20-11, 11:41
I've witnessed it be accurate to minute-of-forehead on a target moving at the speed of motorcycle.
This warms the cockles of my heart.
Amazing how the Army will spend big bucks on weapons, then refuse to follow the recommended maintenance schedule.
Also sounds like a huge lack of training or a lack of oversite from NCOs. NCOs should be making sure thet their troops are properly taking care of their equipment. If that's the kind of maintenance they are allowing, then shit isn't going to work.
Also sounds like a huge lack of training or a lack of oversite from NCOs. NCOs should be making sure thet their troops are properly taking care of their equipment. If that's the kind of maintenance they are allowing, then shit isn't going to work.
M110's are only being issued to sniper sections full of sniper qualified personnel. Know nothing privates are not finger-****ing M110's. The vast majority of end users are dialed in shooters who know what they're doing.
My comments about people cleaning the barrels with boresnakes and CLP were more a condemnation of the Army acquisition process and supply chain, and less of a criticism of the Sniper Teams using the platform.
Sniper teams should not have to buy their own solvent and cleaning rods. But they do. However, these personally purchased products run out over the course of a 12 month deployment. Once that happens it becomes very difficult to get more. Especially if your'e on a remote mountain outpost. Often times, what you're left with is a boresnake and CLP. Better than nothing, but not much.
True, there ARE people out there who will only use what is provided to them. They won't spend out of pocket and will call old and shitty 3 piece rods with splayed connection points / boresnakes / CLP "good enough." But they are few and far between. Most of us care enough about our equipment to spend the money.
That small minority is where a lot of the complaints come from. Negative opinions are generally expressed more vocally than positive ones. That's why it seems as if there are a lot of problems. For every negative comment you read online there are 10 positive experiences that never get expressed.
The only fault I can find with KAC on the whole topic is a few issues with triggers. But as I recall, the problems were fixed once they came to light. There may be a few 110's floating around that have not been fixed, but all that the units need to do is send them to KAC.
roymorrison
11-02-11, 19:30
Yes my section had m110 s/n 86 and 89 iirc, one had the trigger issue with doublefires, they both went to the shop and came back fine. One of them was around 1moa, the other slightly over. Our M24's shot better, however they did not have the capability to integrate with PVS-27/29's (we eventually outfitted them with MARS rails, however the fixed 10x power of the M3A was problematic when used with NVG's) and as such the M110 was the go-to system. I have no problems with it.
Sniper sections are always buying all of our own shit anyways, I was not surprised by the lack of support from higher when these were fielded.
M110's were not at the school house when I went through (2008). I believe the class before mine had them and there weren't enough to go around for 2 classes. A large part of the problem is not alot of Army snipers are actually B4, and they have no institutional experience with the system.
Also, every M14 EBR I've had the displeasure of working with has been a piece of shit.
Back to the M110 - I know they are at least minute of man at 635 meters. I think the system is good for a mass fielded army weapon.
Also, every M14 EBR I've had the displeasure of working with has been a piece of shit.
Dude don't get me started on the M14 EBR's. I don't know who thought it was a good idea to field them with Leupolds w/ M852 168 grain calibrated turrets when all we have is 175 grain M118 LR. Not that it matters because they're 4 MOA guns anyway. The Sage chassis is an absolute nightmare to maintain. That whole platform needs to go away.
infidelprodigy
11-02-11, 23:27
It seems that any issues brought to light have been fixed by KAC very quickly. The problem KAC has is the military not getting all the rifles back to them or doing idiotic things to them for "inspection" or other things that speed up parts wear or reduce accuracy and reliability.
It seems that the M14 EBR is the US equivalent to the PSL. Go through 100 and you might find one that works.
Soldiers use CLP because THAT'S WHAT THE ARMY SPECIFIED WOULD BE THE CLEANER, LUBRICANT, AND PRESERVATIVE. READ THE F'ING MANUAL.
The Army got exactly what they specified and asked for, not what is best for optimum service and performance. The guy who spec'ed the gun hasn't been in the Army in over 25 years, is not a sniper, and was/is a Picatinny contractor.
A rifle issued with a Dewey and complete cleaning and parts kit as Basic Issue Items is good-to-go until you break the seal on it at the first issue -- then stuff gets used up, lost, forgotten, or it just disappears. A lazy or forgetful Soldier never orders a replacement, or when it comes in the inevitable happens in the supply chain and "Someone" neglects to mention it came in, it gets issued to someone else, and the first guy who ordered the replacement is either gone, changed out, has forgotten, or never followed up.
There is no perfect rifle in the US Army system. The M110 has advantages and disadvantages, and when applied to the use it was spec'ed for does fairly well. Issuing it to someone not trained on it or any other sniper system is a waste.
Soldiers use CLP because THAT'S WHAT THE ARMY SPECIFIED WOULD BE THE CLEANER, LUBRICANT, AND PRESERVATIVE. READ THE F'ING MANUAL.
The Army got exactly what they specified and asked for, not what is best for optimum service and performance. The guy who spec'ed the gun hasn't been in the Army in over 25 years, is not a sniper, and was/is a Picatinny contractor.
A rifle issued with a Dewey and complete cleaning and parts kit as Basic Issue Items is good-to-go until you break the seal on it at the first issue -- then stuff gets used up, lost, forgotten, or it just disappears. A lazy or forgetful Soldier never orders a replacement, or when it comes in the inevitable happens in the supply chain and "Someone" neglects to mention it came in, it gets issued to someone else, and the first guy who ordered the replacement is either gone, changed out, has forgotten, or never followed up.
There is no perfect rifle in the US Army system. The M110 has advantages and disadvantages, and when applied to the use it was spec'ed for does fairly well. Issuing it to someone not trained on it or any other sniper system is a waste.
Right...the Army specified that only CLP would be issued with and approved for the 110, against all logic and despite strong protest from the manufacturer. This is the same exact thing I said earlier. I'm not sure if you were talking to me when you said to read the manual? I read it and summarily dismissed the section on cleaning because I know better.
I'm not going to let the Army's failed logic reduce my capabilities with the platform. Our 110's had around 5k rounds through them last time they were used deployed. Can you imagine what kind of accuracy I'd be getting if I had only cleaned with CLP throughout those 5k rounds?
I used the solvent that KAC recommends (Shooters Choice), with a quality one piece rod and bore guide that I had to buy myself. The rifles were shot at 100 for zero confirmation once every two weeks (mission dependent). When accuracy dropped off, the bores were cleaned properly with the above equipment. I think this is a pretty responsible regiment. Our guns were always consistently accurate when they needed to be. There was even one cold bore shot at 1300M. Would that have been possible with a dirty CLP only barrel? Nope.
Out of curiosity, when have you ever seen an M110 issued to a section that didn't have at least a few B4 personnel in leadership positions? I would argue that rarely or never happens. If the Army gave me the stuff I instead had to buy, I would have kept track of it, kept on top of when it needed to get replaced etc. And every single other Sniper Section Leader I've ever met would have too.
I'm not discounting your experience here, but I am to a T the target audience of this discussion, so I feel qualified to disagree with some of your points...mainly that a cleaning rod and solvent shouldn't be issued with the guns.
abn45bravo
11-03-11, 11:07
Mr. Knight can suck it.
M110 as made by Knight"s leaves a lot to be desired. Crappy half assed trigger rail screws with no lock tight out of spec. flash hiders longest lop stock in US army history in an era of body armor.
Guy who spec'd the gun now works for Colt...
Two years ago we offered the Magpul ACS collpasible stock to the Army as a LOP Solution. The Army has sat on that.
We have over 25 ECP's to the gun we want to change...
Kevin, if you could convince the Army to put an SR-25 EMC in our hands we would be very grateful. 16'' is enough barrel. If I need to go further I'll take a M24 or M2010. Keep the STORM to save money. We already have PLRF-10's and Vipers. A NightForce F1 MLR2 on top might be asking too much, but one can dream right? If not NF, then something close that's MIL/MIL and ideally FFP.
Is something like this being considered or proposed? Just curious.
Leupold has a new 3-18 H58 Mil/Mil scope --- same size as the CQBSS.
However the Army SOW for the M110 require a 2FP MOA Mildot scope --- we are trying to see if this can get changed 'outside' the spec as an increase in capability.
Case, Suppressor, Scope and Stock are the biggest complaints. We are trying to fix all those and more.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Idaho035.jpg
I had my SR-25 EMC in the moutains of Idaho with some Army folks - and other than I was using a more DMR relavent optic (the 1.1-8x CQBSS) I was still getting hits to 1200m.
I think with the 3-18x the M110K1 would be the heat for the SASS position.
a0Cake, not being critical on you, brother.
According to the M110's TM 9-1005-342-10 and the Expendable-durables list in TM 9-1005-342-23&P the Dewey one-piece rod is issued, and Rifle Bore Cleaner (RBC) and LSA are not only authorized but specified as useable used on the gun -- you're not locked-in to CLP. Bore guide's also issued.
If you don't have it you're supposed to order it. If the unit doesn't issue it claim it on your taxes (seriously, as required for work but not provided by employer).
The only thing I'd add would be an occasional Sweet's 7.62 de-coppering, but that's not in the book.
Old school, once you're out of Shooter's Choice or bore cleaner use automatic transmission fluid for cleaning and clean motor oil for lubing. By that time you should be ready for rotation home.
ICANHITHIMMAN
11-03-11, 19:08
KevinB
What is this scope of which you speek?
a0Cake, not being critical on you, brother.
According to the M110's TM 9-1005-342-10 and the Expendable-durables list in TM 9-1005-342-23&P the Dewey one-piece rod is issued, and Rifle Bore Cleaner (RBC) and LSA are not only authorized but specified as useable used on the gun -- you're not locked-in to CLP. Bore guide's also issued.
If you don't have it you're supposed to order it. If the unit doesn't issue it claim it on your taxes (seriously, as required for work but not provided by employer).
The only thing I'd add would be an occasional Sweet's 7.62 de-coppering, but that's not in the book.
Old school, once you're out of Shooter's Choice or bore cleaner use automatic transmission fluid for cleaning and clean motor oil for lubing. By that time you should be ready for rotation home.
Well I suppose your point is proven...because I never encountered a military issue Dewey Rod or bore guide when signing for the 110's pre-deployment. Who knows where they wound up. We got them new which is strange. Oh well.
Good point about the taxes. The stuff I bought is pretty much donated to the unit and I don't expect it back. I'd rather it stay with the guns and be put to use.
About the Motor Oil...I'm back stateside again but I'm with you 100%. A bottle of full synthetic was kept right beside every M2 we had and it worked out great. Haven't had to use ATF for cleaning but I'll keep it in the mental tool box. Thanks.
KevinB
What is this scope of which you speek?
Leupold has a new Mk6 3-18x40 H58 scope out. 34mm Tube
I have some pics - but they have other stuff in them so I can't post them yet.
wild_wild_wes
11-05-11, 14:09
Two years ago we offered the Magpul ACS collpasible stock to the Army as a LOP Solution.
Is LOP a big issue?
wild_wild_wes
11-05-11, 14:11
Kevin, if you could convince the Army to put an SR-25 EMC in our hands we would be very grateful. 16'' is enough barrel. If I need to go further I'll take a M24 or M2010.
You think 16" is enough?
You think 16" is enough?
Yes, I surely do. Let's look at velocities out of the 20'' M110 vs. a 16'' M110 carbine. These numbers are KAC's data, BTW. An average of 10 shots of M118 LR 175 grain:
M110 20'' = 2556 FPS
M110 Carbine 16'' = 2476 FPS
80 FPS is not a game changer. The majority of our engagements last time around were <800M. There were a few 1K + engagements, but not many. I would have much preferred a shorter, lighter weapon walking up and down the mountains. Every shot I took with the full size M110, I could have taken with a 16'' barrel.
If during mission planning, METT-TC considerations indicate that that the need for precision capabilities will manifest at 1,200M + ranges, I have the XM2010 chambered in 300 WINMAG available.
I believe a 16'' KAC gun would better fit into the family of systems currently available to US Army snipers than the 20'' gun does.
ICANHITHIMMAN
11-05-11, 14:47
Yes, I surely do. Let's look at velocities out of the 20'' M110 vs. a 16'' M110 carbine. These numbers are KAC's data, BTW. An average of 10 shots of M118 LR 175 grain:
M110 20'' = 2556 FPS
M110 Carbine 16'' = 2476 FPS
80 FPS is not a game changer. The majority of our engagements last time around were <800M. There were a few 1K + engagements, but not many. I would have much preferred a shorter, lighter weapon walking up and down the mountains. Every shot I took with the full size M110, I could have taken with a 16'' barrel.
If during mission planning, METT-TC considerations indicate that that the need for precision capabilities will manifest at 1,200M + ranges, I have the XM2010 chambered in 300 WINMAG available.
I believe a 16'' KAC gun would better fit into the family of systems currently available to US Army snipers than the 20'' gun does.
I will be very interested to here Kevins responce as to what type of testing KAC has done with 16" barrels at ranges greater than 800M.
post tensioned
11-06-11, 20:00
I have a 20" SR-25 and a 16" EMC, and having shot both at 1000 yard fairly extensively, I cannot discern an advantage the 20" has over the 16" as it matters to the velocity of the projectile and the performance of 308 at that distance i.e. drop and wind. The only way for me to determine an advantage depends on which optic I'm running on either more than anything else.
If I was given the choice to take one into battle it would be the 16" EMC without hesitation. To me, there is no discernible difference in performance with very real advantages in size and weight.
I have a 20" SR-25 and a 16" EMC, and having shot both at 1000 yard fairly extensively, I cannot discern an advantage the 20" has over the 16" as it matters to the velocity of the projectile and the performance of 308 at that distance i.e. drop and wind. The only way for me to determine an advantage depends on which optic I'm running on either more than anything else.
If I was given the choice to take one into battle it would be the 16" EMC without hesitation. To me, there is no discernible difference in performance with very real advantages in size and weight.
Your assessment is dead on practically speaking. The rounds coming from the 16'' will obviously go transonic earlier than the 20'', but at 24/26'' is where you start seeing tangible benefits. I'll take 16'' over a 20'' any time when it comes to these KAC guns.
ICANHITHIMMAN
11-07-11, 06:10
Thats what I was expecting to here glad to have other like minded people on board.
Since it's a semiautomatic rifle with a can for the most part, that 4" of mobility would be worth a lot more than the marginal muzzle velocity gain, especially with weapons like the XM2010 and Mk13 in inventories.
A LOP fix would make that difference even more tangible for operating out of vehicles (ACS sounds like the winning solution, especially if somebody wants to cook up a removable monopod).
I'm upset that what should be incremental product improvements to the deliverable weapon system (as occurs in most other defense contracts) are being rejected from the Army end: I'm still mystified that A2 length stocks exist anywhere within the current military (VLTOR's A5 for M16A4's), and the one instance where the force multiplier effect can be most enhanced -the optic - future progress is not being made...
but god forbid a general uses a two year old computer system.
We've seen from 2440fps (32F in Idaho at 7500ASL) to 2560fps in NC with M118LR in the 16" gun.
Ft Benning data is 2571 for the 20" M110
M118LR is all over the map for MV -- especially in temperature changes, or if it been 'rough handled' as its a temperature sensitive powder.
Around 2500 is what we see for AB39 (Mk316 Mod0) - pretty much at most temps and altitudes.
I hit a 1434m target in Idaho with my SR-25EMC first round with the 1.1-8x
(of course I got to see wind and range data from other shooters...)
*:secret: I also did not hit on my second round...
From everything we see the 16" gun is all that the 20" gun is and more -- its works with a much larger variety of rounds.
We've seen from 2440fps (32F in Idaho at 7500ASL) to 2560fps in NC with M118LR in the 16" gun.
Ft Benning data is 2571 for the 20" M110
M118LR is all over the map for MV -- especially in temperature changes, or if it been 'rough handled' as its a temperature sensitive powder.
Around 2500 is what we see for AB39 (Mk316 Mod0) - pretty much at most temps and altitudes.
I hit a 1434m target in Idaho with my SR-25EMC first round with the 1.1-8x
(of course I got to see wind and range data from other shooters...)
*:secret: I also did not hit on my second round...
From everything we see the 16" gun is all that the 20" gun is and more -- its works with a much larger variety of rounds.
Has the powder used in the MK316 been made public yet? I know it was hush hush for a while. Which is why I just use this stuff anyway....
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e379/tuckamony/powdercan.jpg
We've seen from 2440fps (32F in Idaho at 7500ASL) to 2560fps in NC with M118LR in the 16" gun.
Ft Benning data is 2571 for the 20" M110
M118LR is all over the map for MV -- especially in temperature changes, or if it been 'rough handled' as its a temperature sensitive powder.
Around 2500 is what we see for AB39 (Mk316 Mod0) - pretty much at most temps and altitudes.
I hit a 1434m target in Idaho with my SR-25EMC first round with the 1.1-8x
(of course I got to see wind and range data from other shooters...)
*:secret: I also did not hit on my second round...
From everything we see the 16" gun is all that the 20" gun is and more -- its works with a much larger variety of rounds.
Good shooting:D
I can normally make first round hits with my EMC out to 1000m but past that it takes me a couple more.:(
I average 2530 with BH 175s out of mine.
ICANHITHIMMAN
11-07-11, 14:36
We've seen from 2440fps (32F in Idaho at 7500ASL) to 2560fps in NC with M118LR in the 16" gun.
Ft Benning data is 2571 for the 20" M110
M118LR is all over the map for MV -- especially in temperature changes, or if it been 'rough handled' as its a temperature sensitive powder.
Around 2500 is what we see for AB39 (Mk316 Mod0) - pretty much at most temps and altitudes.
I hit a 1434m target in Idaho with my SR-25EMC first round with the 1.1-8x
(of course I got to see wind and range data from other shooters...)
*:secret: I also did not hit on my second round...
From everything we see the 16" gun is all that the 20" gun is and more -- its works with a much larger variety of rounds.
Thanks Kevin
They use R15 in M118LR its a very popular powder for the 308 win. I may be a bit nieve but that velocity spread is not that drastic for the conditions you just quoted.
Belmont31R
11-07-11, 15:05
Thanks Kevin
They use R15 in M118LR its a very popular powder for the 308 win. I may be a bit nieve but that velocity spread is not that drastic for the conditions you just quoted.
Ive shot my EMC from 100+ to ~20 and there is indeed a huge POI shift with temp. In the winter, with the Short-Dot, I would have to max out the elevation (25MOA) and then use the first hash mark down as my aiming point. During the summer with 100+ I can usually hit dead on at around 23-24MOA and use the center point of the reticle.
ETA: Above at 750yrds.
My 1,000 Meter dope for my 20'' M110 was 12.9 MILS at 3,400 FT, 60 degrees, and ~80 percent humidity.
At the same altitude, but 20 degrees Fahrenheit, it jumps to almost 14 MILS.
Combination of powder temp change and atmospheric effects on the external ballistics of the round.
Definitely a noticeable difference. That's with M118LR. I suspect the difference with MK316 would be somewhat less.
wild_wild_wes
11-08-11, 20:22
Two years ago we offered the Magpul ACS collpasible stock to the Army as a LOP Solution. The Army has sat on that.
I've seen lots of operational pics of shooters putting raised cheek rests on their precision 7.62s, so I'm not sure if that is the best solution:
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6155/afghanistanchasseursalp.jpg
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6155/afghanistanchasseursalp.jpg
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6155/afghanistanchasseursalp.jpg
Something like the VLTOR A1 length Modstock is likely a good solution. It has the A1 length of pull which is less than the A2. Although I've never had LOP issues with the M110. It's not like you shoot nose to charging handle with these rifles. Low profile plate carriers do not interfere with getting the buttstock into the pocket of the shoulder. I don't know if guys are stuck with IOTV's or what, but I've never had an issue with LOP on the M110 as issued with a PC. I'm 5'10'' for what it's worth...and all my personally owned precision AR's have A2 buttstocks. All my carbines get shot with the buttstock fully extended as well.
http://www.vltor.com/images/tanrflkit.jpg
I've seen lots of operational pics of shooters putting raised cheek rests on their precision 7.62s, so I'm not sure if that is the best solution:
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/6155/afghanistanchasseursalp.jpg
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6155/afghanistanchasseursalp.jpg
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/6155/afghanistanchasseursalp.jpg
Sorry to derail the thread but who are these guys in these pics? The front guy in the third pic looks like he is carrying a FAMAS.
Back on topic. I know my sniper friends in my 05 tour in Iraq would have loved a M110. Their longest shot of that tour was only 350 meters and they frequently were shooting at groups where the semi auto would have really helped.
Sorry to derail the thread but who are these guys in these pics? The front guy in the third pic looks like he is carrying a FAMAS.
Back on topic. I know my sniper friends in my 05 tour in Iraq would have loved a M110. Their longest shot of that tour was only 350 meters and they frequently were shooting at groups where the semi auto would have really helped.
Appears to be the frogs. No actual disrespect intended. Good guys from what I've seen.
They're French -- I believe they are carrying limited numbers of HK 417s, not Knights'.
Those are clearly HK 417s.
I had no idea the French were in Afghanistan. Then again Im assuming these pics are from AFG.
I've seen lots of operational pics of shooters putting raised cheek rests on their precision 7.62s, so I'm not sure if that is the best solution:
wes,
Whats the original source for that photo? I'd like to see if I can use them to go on my homepage with some other rifles.
French HK 417s:
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/8049/asafg2897.jpg
http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/6109/dansunvehiculedelavantb.jpg
http://www.servir-et-defendre.org/armees_francaises/materiels_des_armees_francaises/hk417/bi_corse-matin_hk417_1.sd.jpg
http://i26.servimg.com/u/f26/14/16/37/49/001_211.jpg
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9664/2eregstan19.jpg
An Indian national from the 1st section "Les Aigles " (the eagles) of the 2nd REG (Régiment étranger du génie), serving as a soldier with the French Foreign Legion, at Forward Operating Base Tagab-Kutschbach near Tagab in Kapisa Province on January 24, 2011. The French Foreign Legion, a military unit established in 1831, was created for foreign nationals of any nationlity wishing to serve in the French armed forces. AFP PHOTO/Joel SAGET
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/3711/2eregstan18.jpg
A Canadian national from the 1st section "Les Aigles " (the eagles) of the 2nd REG (Régiment étranger du génie), serving as a soldier with the French Foreign Legion, at Forward Operating Base Tagab-Kutschbach near Tagab in Kapisa Province on January 24, 2011. The French Foreign Legion, a military unit established in 1831, was created for foreign nationals of any nationlity wishing to serve in the French armed forces. AFP PHOTO/Joel SAGET
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/3320/2eregstan16.jpg
A German national from the 1st section "Les Aigles " (the eagles) of the 2nd REG (Régiment étranger du génie), serving as a soldier with the French Foreign Legion, at Forward Operating Base Tagab-Kutschbach near Tagab in Kapisa Province on January 24, 2011. The French Foreign Legion, a military unit established in 1831, was created for foreign nationals of any nationlity wishing to serve in the French armed forces. AFP PHOTO/Joel SAGET
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/3466/2eregstan12.jpg
A Polish national from the 1st section "Les Aigles " (the eagles) of the 2nd REG (Régiment étranger du génie), serving as a soldier with the French Foreign Legion, at Forward Operating Base Tagab-Kutschbach near Tagab in Kapisa Province on January 24, 2011. The French Foreign Legion, a military unit established in 1831, was created for foreign nationals of any nationlity wishing to serve in the French armed forces. AFP PHOTO/Joel SAGET
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/2803/2eregstan14.jpg
A Romanian national from the 1st section "Les Aigles " (the eagles) of the 2nd REG (Régiment étranger du génie), serving as a soldier with the French Foreign Legion, at Forward Operating Base Tagab-Kutschbach near Tagab in Kapisa Province on January 24, 2011. The French Foreign Legion, a military unit established in 1831, was created for foreign nationals of any nationlity wishing to serve in the French armed forces. AFP PHOTO/Joel SAGET
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e149/icarusy625/DSCF5795.jpg
French HK 417s:
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/8049/asafg2897.jpg
http://www.servir-et-defendre.org/armees_francaises/materiels_des_armees_francaises/hk417/bi_corse-matin_hk417_1.sd.jpg
http://i26.servimg.com/u/f26/14/16/37/49/001_211.jpg
Shit more copywrites to chase down......
I have some now for the Aussies and their 417's. How about the Norwegians and the Belgians.......
The more of these I see the more I think I'm wrong about using a 5.56 DMR. At least I've always held it out as a PLT level tool.....
ICANHITHIMMAN
11-09-11, 15:54
The French were south of Kandhar when I was there in 2004 so they have been there for quite a while.
It doesn't point itself.
You can hand any troop in the squad a Light Saber -- doesn't make him Carlos Hathcock.
Ozzies:
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/3668/hk417.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Australian%20Defence%20Force%202/9a5f4121.jpg
http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/Australian%20Defence%20Force%202/3e7956c7.jpg
http://pro-patria.us/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/M110K1_w_can_and_cqbss.31282342_std.JPG
Back to the 110, or in this case the 110K. Have not caught a photo of one of these in the wild yet.
ICANHITHIMMAN
11-09-11, 20:52
My 1,000 Meter dope for my 20'' M110 was 12.9 MILS at 3,400 FT, 60 degrees, and ~80 percent humidity.
At the same altitude, but 20 degrees Fahrenheit, it jumps to almost 14 MILS.
Combination of powder temp change and atmospheric effects on the external ballistics of the round.
Definitely a noticeable difference. That's with M118LR. I suspect the difference with MK316 would be somewhat less.
I was thinking about this some more. Can you 100% attribute the change in DOPE to powder sensitivity or is it air density?
I was thinking about this some more. Can you 100% attribute the change in DOPE to powder sensitivity or is it air density?
It's a combination. Powder does play a part in the equation, although I can't say to what extent. Yet it definitely does to a point, which is why I remarked that the MK316 would be affected less. How much? I don't know.
I'm not a ballistician; I just know the practical effects of atmospheric changes on my particular application. The following link likely does a better job of explaining it than I could.
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/5th/31.cfm
Another question for KB - are the 45' offset sights another improvement you guys have been looking at?
ICANHITHIMMAN
11-10-11, 06:55
It's a combination. Powder does play a part in the equation, although I can't say to what extent. Yet it definitely does to a point, which is why I remarked that the MK316 would be affected less. How much? I don't know.
I'm not a ballistician; I just know the practical effects of atmospheric changes on my particular application. The following link likely does a better job of explaining it than I could.
http://www.exteriorballistics.com/ebexplained/5th/31.cfm
Thanks, I dont know anything about the MK316 round. Whats the story on that? I have one question for you with all the experience you have with the M110 will you be buying your own some day?
ICANHITHIMMAN
11-10-11, 07:05
Ok I awnsered my own question. They have switched from R15 to IMR 4064 wich if its true kind of suprises me.
ICANHITHIMMAN
11-10-11, 07:06
http://pro-patria.us/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/M110K1_w_can_and_cqbss.31282342_std.JPG
Back to the 110, or in this case the 110K. Have not caught a photo of one of these in the wild yet.
God that is sexy it may be the one that pushes me over the top. What changes does the K designation denote?
New hand guard, 16" barrel, new suppressor, off set sights, collapsible MagPul stock, MAID grip, Ambi controls.
It's products like this that make you want to move out of NYS:shout:
ICANHITHIMMAN
11-10-11, 09:56
New hand guard, 16" barrel, new suppressor, off set sights, collapsible MagPul stock, MAID grip, Ambi controls.
It's products like this that make you want to move out of NYS:shout:
Agreed 100% I'm just wating for my wife to agree to the move. I hate it here.
I also just recently moved to NYS. Hate it. NYS M4C shoot sometime?? Where?
ICANHITHIMMAN
11-10-11, 10:08
I'm also just recently moved to NYS. Hate it. NYS M4C shoot sometime?? Where?
Well I think DMR lives up in Watertown area. I live down south of Rochester about 2 1/2 hours from each other. I would guess there are better ranges up his way. I have a few here that could be rented for the day or just used.
Jon
M118LR is standard GI 7.62mm Long Range ammunition produced at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. Lake City is a GO/CO operation (Government Owned/Contractor Operated -- the current contractor is ATK, parent company of Federal).
M118LR suffers from the fact that Lake City is schizophrenic. Who defines the testing accuracy standard of the ammo? If it's too tough to meet the old accuracy standard, lower the standard so more ammo passes.
Those relaxed standards resulted in Long Range that, quite frankly, sucks. SOCOM couldn't take it any longer and specified Mark 318. Federal meets those requirements with ammo loaded on their commercial Gold Medal Match line in Anoka, Minnesota (using IMR 4064 vice Reloader 15).
What is supposed to be a high-quality 7.62mm ammunition, made with similar components, comes down to who delivers at the specified standard.
ICANHITHIMMAN
11-10-11, 11:25
M118LR is standard GI 7.62mm Long Range ammunition produced at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant. Lake City is a GO/CO operation (Government Owned/Contractor Operated -- the current contractor is ATK, parent company of Federal).
M118LR suffers from the fact that Lake City is schizophrenic. Who defines the testing accuracy standard of the ammo? If it's too tough to meet the old accuracy standard, lower the standard so more ammo passes.
Those relaxed standards resulted in Long Range that, quite frankly, sucks. SOCOM couldn't take it any longer and specified Mark 318. Federal meets those requirements with ammo loaded on their commercial Gold Medal Match line in Anoka, Minnesota (using IMR 4064 vice Reloader 15).
What is supposed to be a high-quality 7.62mm ammunition, made with similar components, comes down to who delivers at the specified standard.
Well that is very clear thanks for the info makes since now.
Italians w/ their M110s:
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/1642/sr252.jpg
http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/70/64845058.jpg
wild_wild_wes
11-11-11, 10:00
Americans w/ their M110s:
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/snipercomp201008.jpg
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/snipercomp201002.jpg
Notice the ad hoc cheek risers.
I have a dozen pics I've come across of USSF and NSW using the PRS:
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/NSW1.jpg
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/NSW2.jpg
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/prs1.jpg
wild_wild_wes
11-15-11, 22:09
D'oh! I don't know how I missed this:
The US Army has issued a request to the private sector to reconfigure or replace the current Knight Armament M110 sniper rifle as the current version of the M110 is not functioning well in the field requiring significant maintenance and replacement of parts.
The specifications the US Army has issued are as follows:
1.Operation: Semi-automatic
2.Caliber: Compatible with 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges
3.Accuracy: Capable of 1.3 minute of angle dispersion or better with match ammunition
4.Size: Overall length shall be reduced using a shorter barrel and/or collapsible buttstock. Maximum length not to exceed 39 without suppressor. Desired minimum length is less than 36 with stock collapsed.
5.Weight: Weight shall be under 9.0 lb for 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 forend 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 brake 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.Other: The upgraded M110 must meet the operational and environmental requirements that were fulfilled by the original M110 SASS.
D'oh! I don't know how I missed this:
At first glance, it appears that the solicitation was written specifically for the SR25-EMC or OBR (would likely make weight with minor changes). The only other rifle in production that meets the weight requirement is the SCAR-H. This is not surprising - KAC had a EMC at their booth last month during the sniper competition at Benning. Several of us commented that it should replace the M110.
Lost River
11-16-11, 07:22
Leupold has a new 3-18 H58 Mil/Mil scope --- same size as the CQBSS.
However the Army SOW for the M110 require a 2FP MOA Mildot scope --- we are trying to see if this can get changed 'outside' the spec as an increase in capability.
Case, Suppressor, Scope and Stock are the biggest complaints. We are trying to fix all those and more.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/EvilKev/Idaho035.jpg
I had my SR-25 EMC in the moutains of Idaho with some Army folks - and other than I was using a more DMR relavent optic (the 1.1-8x CQBSS) I was still getting hits to 1200m.
I think with the 3-18x the M110K1 would be the heat for the SASS position.
Kevin,
Someone took you to the "Valley of the Orange Rocks" in central Idaho? You were not even asked to pinky swear?
Whoa!
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/summer2010053.jpg
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b109/IV_Troop/summer2010075.jpg
wild_wild_wes
12-11-11, 22:12
Some interesting new pics:
http://img843.imageshack.us/img843/8387/497407.jpg
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/405/497418.jpg
A competitor moves down a ladder to get to his next firing location during the United States Army Special Operations Command Sniper Competition on Dec. 9. The 3rd annual competition was held by the cadre of D Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Special Warfare Training Group (Airborne) Dec. 5-9 on Fort Bragg, N.C. Challenged in every aspect of sniper operations during both daytime and nighttime, 32 teams of military and civilian law enforcement snipers were pit against time, distance and realistic combat environments to determine the best special-operations sniper team
I believe it was M110's all around this year in order to level the playing field and make the competition less about gear.
Top 6 teams this year came from:
1 - United States Army Special Operations Command
2 - Netherlands
3 - 10th Group
4 - 10th Group
5 - San Diego SWAT
6 - 1st Group
Looks like a great event.
Intl. Sniper Comp was restricted. USASOC competition was not restricted.
Intl. Sniper Comp was restricted. USASOC competition was not restricted.
Aha. Heard somewhere it was both, guess not. I wonder what rifles helped the #1 team get to the prize table. The amount of SWAG at these events has to be insane.
Spent the week (Sun to Sat) in Bragg.
Team 1 USASOC, shooting M110 with M110 Collapsible Stock Kit (ACS, 10 position Midlength Buffer, Carbine Buffer and Carbine Action Spring, and 762Carbine Receiver End Plate).
Most telling was only 1 team using M110's had the issue stock...
Spent the week (Sun to Sat) in Bragg.
Team 1 USASOC, shooting M110 with M110 Collapsible Stock Kit (ACS, 10 position Midlength Buffer, Carbine Buffer and Carbine Action Spring, and 762Carbine Receiver End Plate).
Most telling was only 1 team using M110's had the issue stock...
Is there a big push to upgrade those existing M110s in the field (i.e top down)? Or is this just something individuals are doing based on preference, Kevin?
Everyone hates the M110 Stock, the Scope, the Suppressor, and the case...
SOCOM has a safety release to add the collpasible stock kit since 2004.
MARSOC opted for an entire Carbine conversion kit to their M110 SASS they get from the USMC.
Some entire units converted their M110's to Collapsible stock kits, others have done PRS or the Old Battle Rifle SOPMOD stock kits.
Everyone hates the M110 Stock, the Scope, the Suppressor, and the case...
Is the idea that the M110 will be getting the standard suppressor with some of the new ones from KAC, or using the SureFires?
Having not tried the M110 stock, was it just due to the length of pull and weight?
Thanks for the info.
Is the idea that the M110 will be getting the standard suppressor with some of the new ones from KAC, or using the SureFires?
Having not tried the M110 stock, was it just due to the length of pull and weight?
Thanks for the info.
Length of pull while wearing armor is really annoying.
Glad to see people getting ACS/Sopmod.
Is the idea that the M110 will be getting the standard suppressor with some of the new ones from KAC, or using the SureFires?
Having not tried the M110 stock, was it just due to the length of pull and weight?
Thanks for the info.
LOP
The Army is going down the road to compete the M110A1 upgrade, we received another 5 year Sole Source and no changes where authorized -- so until the Army gets around to running the upgrade program, no changes to stock, suppressor etc will be made, outside of USASOC units who spend unit Funds.
freefalle7
12-18-11, 00:57
Yep that stock sucks when wearing Body Armor
This is a old complaint, i'm surprised it hasnt been fixed already.
I thought only the Benning Sniper school 110s still had the old stock.
Free
Length of pull while wearing armor is really annoying.
Glad to see people getting ACS/Sopmod.
Only SOCOM has issued a Safety Release for the Collapsible Stocks on Mk11/SR-25/M110. In theory no USMC or Army unit can do that, (without unit commader blessing and acceptance of risk etc.)
lwrkeysfisher
12-20-11, 20:38
Kevin, I noticed the 2012 NDAA as agreed upon in conference and forwarded to the POTUS did not provide any funding for the m110 system (H.R. 1460, sec. 4101 line 26 - pg. 723). Did you guys get funding for your contract through OCO, or am I missing something? Thanks.
I believe most of the funds where allocated in 2011.
wild_wild_wes
03-27-12, 20:32
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/459857_410424432306587_190158030999896_1804064_604227668_o.jpg
I am seeing a lot of the 110's with the magpul, how is the length of pull of the magpul compared to the A1 and A2 stocks?
wild_wild_wes
04-23-12, 17:18
It starts off at A2 length and gets longer from there.
If a 110 doesn't have a PRS, odds are it has a field-expedient riser.
It starts off at A2 length and gets longer from there.
If a 110 doesn't have a PRS, odds are it has a field-expedient riser.
Close, but it actually starts off 1/4'' shorter than A2 and goes 3/4'' past it for LOP on the 7.62 version.
Gutshot John
04-23-12, 18:08
A Romanian national from the 1st section "Les Aigles " (the eagles) of the 2nd REG (Régiment étranger du génie), serving as a soldier with the French Foreign Legion, at Forward Operating Base Tagab-Kutschbach near Tagab in Kapisa Province on January 24, 2011. The French Foreign Legion, a military unit established in 1831, was created for foreign nationals of any nationlity wishing to serve in the French armed forces. AFP PHOTO/Joel SAGET
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e149/icarusy625/DSCF5795.jpg
Are you sure that's FFL? The ones I served with all wore green berets. That looks like typical French Army.
Are you sure that's FFL? The ones I served with all wore green berets. That looks like typical French Army.
Probably a mismatched caption and photo...because that grass doesn't exactly scream "Afghanistan" to me.
Well the PM Shop shot down our ECP to make the gun shorter and lighter...
wild_wild_wes
05-05-12, 19:59
What do you mean, Kevin? No telestock, or was a shorter barrel being considered too?
In 2009 we had M110 PIP meetings with the Army, items to be considered where a smaller case, a collapsbile stock and a lighter smaller suppressor. In 2010 the shorter barrel and a new scope was added to the US Army PM IW want list, supported by SRD in Ft. Benning and unanimously supported by the SEP council.
Price was reduced aprox $2,800/unit with the new kit as well.
Oh well back to the drawing board.
Good god, the Systems Engineering student in me is leaping off tall buildings.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Good god, the Systems Engineering student in me is leaping off tall buildings.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Your final exam should be to figure this shit out...the Defense acquisition system:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wall_chart.jpg
I can't even believe this is real.
OH it's for real all right.............................
Your final exam should be to figure this shit out...the Defense acquisition system:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wall_chart.jpg
I can't even believe this is real.
Holy Shit!
I opened that up, looked at it for about 5 seconds, said "**** that shit" and closed it.
Your final exam should be to figure this shit out...the Defense acquisition system:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wall_chart.jpg
I can't even believe this is real.
The laptop I had back in 2010 had that as the background forever. That wouldn't be a final, that would be an entire university's post-grad staff combining for one thesis to handle one color coded section. Bear in mind that's the notional idealized version of the procurement process, and oversimplified horribly to make it fit on just one wall.
There are no analogies available in English or bad english to encompass precisely how hopelessly ****ed that system of systems is.
That is actually a quite wonderful wall chart. Wish it had been hanging on our contracting office's wall 15 years ago when I was trying to buy weapon systems for the Army. It would have been very helpful.
Slight derail (but not really, because it's an example of how crazy the decision making process can get and how it leads to arguably bad decisions, such as forgoing a lighter, shorter, M110)...
But anyway, a junior officer presented this slide (which apparently is an all-encompassing guide to the Afghan war) to General Stanley McChrystal, who immediately dismissed him and had the computer shut down, stating "when we understand that slide, we'll have won the war."
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/28/article-0-09562375000005DC-283_964x699.jpg
wild_wild_wes
12-22-12, 16:42
UPDATE
It seems SASS is about to morph into CSASS
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/tag/m110-sass-csass-sniper/
The US Army’s PM Soldier Weapons has put out a sources sought request over on FedBiz looking for sources to manufacture a complete weapon system or reconfigure some or all of the existing 7.62 x 51mm M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS) currently available in the Army’s inventory. The Army is looking to reduce the rifle’s length to 36″ overall with a collapsible buttstock closed and no suppressor in place and hit a weight of 9 pounds, naked. The new weapon would become a compact version of the SASS, and be called the CSASS. The document says they’ll be looking to build or convert 125 rifles per month with a capability to ramp up to 325 rifles per month.
Magic_Salad0892
12-23-12, 01:52
UPDATE
It seems SASS is about to morph into CSASS
http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gearscout/tag/m110-sass-csass-sniper/
The US Army’s PM Soldier Weapons has put out a sources sought request over on FedBiz looking for sources to manufacture a complete weapon system or reconfigure some or all of the existing 7.62 x 51mm M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS) currently available in the Army’s inventory. The Army is looking to reduce the rifle’s length to 36″ overall with a collapsible buttstock closed and no suppressor in place and hit a weight of 9 pounds, naked. The new weapon would become a compact version of the SASS, and be called the CSASS. The document says they’ll be looking to build or convert 125 rifles per month with a capability to ramp up to 325 rifles per month.
Seems like it was written with KAC's SR-25 ECC in mind.
wild_wild_wes
12-23-12, 23:32
Everyone hates the M110 Stock, the Scope, the Suppressor, and the case...
Sorry I missed this.
What are the complaints about the scope?
I have extensive experience with the M110. No complaints here. Great platform. We had two of them issued.
We could not get them to group quite as well as the M24's, but accuracy was still outstanding (1-1.5 MOA). The ability to have a suppressed, precision, semi-automatic sniper system far outweighs the marginal accuracy disadvantage.
Many of the complaints stemmed from people who were pulling boresnakes with CLP on them through the bores, and expecting that to be good enough. CLP does nothing to remove copper buildup and is insufficient in this application. 3,000 rounds down the barrel with nothing but an occasional boresnake and CLP is going to lead to poor accuracy.
For whatever reason, the Army would not allow a proper solvent to be issued with the 110's. But, people are getting smarter. We went ahead and acquired our own supply of Shooters Choice solvent (the one that KAC recommends). Cleaned properly with a good one piece rod and bore guide, the barrel performs.
Also, KAC's recommendations as far as replacement intervals on the bolt etc. were not being followed. People were just shooting them to death, ignoring the recommendations, then complaining.
But, again, the Army as a whole is learning from it and these issues are becoming less and less prevalent.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbMuknl677A
he talks about recoppering the barrel in this video. is that what you do too?
Sorry I missed this.
What are the complaints about the scope?
3.5-10x - with the 10x being too low
TMR reticle
1/2MOA adjustment not Mils.
wild_wild_wes
01-22-13, 17:46
10x will be too low even when they go to the Compact SASS version for the Spotter/DMR role?
What magnification range is wanted/needed?
For the Sniper role many will want up into the higher magnification (20-30 power) for positive ID. Many of the newer/newest (expensive) telescopes feature 34 and 35mm scope tubes and high definition (ED or fluorite) lenses.
10X may or may not be about right for the Sharpshooter role, depending on how chains of command want to use him (or the inevitable mission creep).
The Infantry Center hasn't put out a definitive doctrinal Marksman/Sharpshooter document out since around 2005-06.
wild_wild_wes
01-22-13, 21:06
Ahh, that's what I thought. That makes sense, for something like the .300WM or whatever high-performance round they want to shift to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbMuknl677A
he talks about recoppering the barrel in this video. is that what you do too?
Sorry but I quit watching when he started talking ad-nauseum about break-in.
Basically, at some point, copper may need to come out. The "shoot more clean less" mantra is true to a point, as is the notion that cleaning out carbon only and leaving copper in the bore is often sufficient.
But it's not a universal. Some barrels will start opening up after a certain number of rounds and need to be de-coppered. Some may do it in 500 rounds, while some may go on indefinitely without needing to be de-coppered. But the idea that no barrel ever has to be thoroughly cleaned is bunk. It also depends what your standards for precision are.
I simply re-zero after de-coppering and confirm with multiple groups and never have issues. In fact, using KG-2 instead of a solvent takes out just enough copper to get back lost accuracy (when/if that occurs) without causing clean bore problems. The KG 1/2/3/4 cleaning regimen is really the way to go, and I've never had clean-bore shot issues with it.
The problem many will run into is once the sun goes down -- if you don't have passive or thermal clip-on you may have some challenges with light collection and higher magnification.
wild_wild_wes
01-26-13, 22:12
CSASS should look a bit like this:
http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k132/pseudonominus/UB71_zpse6d9416e.jpg
Details like the handguard will be different, of course.
18X is the min the Army will take for CSASS, a lot of this came out of a M110PIP Working Group we did with the Army in Feb 2011. The Army SEP voted to ECP the M110 into the M110K1, however other aspects came into play.
For those who know SGM Pete Gould ret. he was the USASOC G8 at the time, and helped steer at lot of the optics discussions. I don't agree with him in everything, but it was interesting.
wild_wild_wes
01-27-13, 11:43
Can you fill us in as to why the decision was made to go with an 18X minimum maximum magnification, Kevin? (If OPSEC or some other factor allows you to share this info). Also, do you agree with it?
The Germans went with a 3-20×50 on their DMR. In the Designated Marksmen discussion thread, many felt this was too much scope for the role.
http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii173/USPx4/G281.jpg
KevinB, do any COTS scopes meet the new CSASS optic goals?
Failure2Stop
01-27-13, 15:00
KevinB, do any COTS scopes meet the new CSASS optic goals?
Threshold, not objective.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
BrigandTwoFour
01-27-13, 23:37
I'm guessing the magnification requirement is stemming from a desire to use the scopes as effective observation devices as well? No personal experience, but having read several books by snipers, it seems that the observation skills part is every bit as important as the shooting part when it comes to their skill set.
My own experience with my longer range shooting (up to about 800) would demonstrate some issues with mirage and scope jitter when shooting past about 14x (this could also be my relative lack of skill behind these rifles). I would imagine that a scope with a wide magnification range, say 3.5-20x, would be a good all-round scope for both observation at high magnification and then shooting at lower magnification.
I'm curious to see what comes out of this program.
Everyone wants a 1-100x, variable reticle, auto parallax correcting optic, with illuminated reticle, that is 6" long, crystal clear glass, weights 2 oz, and is $250.
However until that happens.
The 18x min was determined by the user jury based upon target discrimination requirements at 800m, that magnification was deemed necessary to be able to get PID on a target.
To get costing down on the scope - they dropped the illuminated reticle, desire was to get better quality glass.
wild_wild_wes
01-28-13, 11:46
If a 1-8x scope would not be considered, if in addition to the monster scope, an offset RDS was addded, would that be sufficient for the shooter to sufficiently function in the rifleman's role also?
Failure2Stop
01-28-13, 12:30
If a 1-8x scope would not be considered, if in addition to the monster scope, an offset RDS was addded, would that be sufficient for the shooter to sufficiently function in the rifleman's role also?
It would be a rather heavy solution.
Actually the Army selected the T1 in IIRC the TNVC ring mount as the Sniper Quick Fire sight - so soon every sniper rifle will have a T-1 on it too.
To me, having run Dr Optic's on both TA01NSN's and 3.5-10x's "back in the day" they do not offer the same combat viability as using a red dot 1x in the primary optic.
the 12 O'Clock T1 gives the shooter the ability to get on it locate a tgt and pop into the optic still at magnification. - but IMHO is a poor close range method.
The 45Degree T1 gives a decent CCO to 200m or so - but not ideal.
IF I had spec'd a reticle for the optic - I would have put a donut in the reticle much like the H27D so you could have a clear defined aiming point at min magnification.
But I'm just me, fat guy behind a keyboard stuck in Excel hell.
But I'm just me, fat guy behind a keyboard stuck in Excel hell.
Kevin,
I thought I saw you down here.
Be back later to chat about the program.
abn45bravo
01-29-13, 14:57
Kevin are you guys ever going to fix the trigger I am getting sick of coding guns because the triggers won’t stay within spec.
Failure2Stop
01-29-13, 15:08
Kevin are you guys ever going to fix the trigger I am getting sick of coding guns because the triggers won’t stay within spec.
The "new" version is not adjustable.
According to the Army the triggers since the October 08 fix are fine.
The only ones that have been of issue have not been returned for the swap (about 300 guns still in fleet have not been fixed).
Major issue on the adjustable trigger is carbon buildup under the front of the sear and disconnect arms - that has a tendency to through it out of adjustment.
Admittedly this is usually only noticed on guns used more as a Battle Rifle than a sniper gun, or are not cleaned at all.
This has been an internally discovered issue from our testing, and from some trainers, but has never been raised as a Big Army problem.
We do have an ECP in for our Drop In Trigger (non Adjustable) if the Army accepts it, well I am not holding my breath.
abn45bravo
01-29-13, 19:28
According to the Army the triggers since the October 08 fix are fine.
The only ones that have been of issue have not been returned for the swap (about 300 guns still in fleet have not been fixed).
Major issue on the adjustable trigger is carbon buildup under the front of the sear and disconnect arms - that has a tendency to through it out of adjustment.
Admittedly this is usually only noticed on guns used more as a Battle Rifle than a sniper gun, or are not cleaned at all.
This has been an internally discovered issue from our testing, and from some trainers, but has never been raised as a Big Army problem.
We do have an ECP in for our Drop In Trigger (non Adjustable) if the Army accepts it, well I am not holding my breath.
Yes I was there when we sent every M110 we had back to you guys for the first "fix" and we have still had trigger problems.
last company I checked had 1/4 of the guns fail trigger pull 3 where to light and one factory new gun had a 7 lbs trigger. If you consider that Crane replaced the original knights triggers with accuracy speaks in the Mk12's and then Geissele in both the Mk12 and Mk11 series of rifles and then your failed attempt at a trigger the first time around with the M110. why then didn't you people put a trigger in the m110 that had a proven track record for reliability?
:stop:
While I love to go round and round on the internet with some anonymous poster, email me if you have issues, put in a PQDR if your serious.
Fact of the matter is, the Army has no reported trigger issues since the October 08 issues. If no one uses the proper reporting methods we the company do not gain data. No offense to you but we have seen a number of reported issues disappear when we send a team out to help, and if there is an issue like we have with a few of the first MARSOC M110K1's like the first Mk11 Mod0's - we fix it fast.
The Only Mk11 Mod2's we put Geissele triggers (Qty 12 furnished GFE) in registered in at over 6lbs and Crane stopped that, at least at the factory.
Crane and the USMC still buy the FA trigger for Mk12's.
IF I had spec'd a reticle for the optic - I would have put a donut in the reticle much like the H27D so you could have a clear defined aiming point at min magnification.
But I'm just me, fat guy behind a keyboard stuck in Excel hell.
Like this? This is a reticle that I worked up for this kind of application a while back. I'm not sure how I feel about the hollow circle business with the H27, but I've never used one so who knows.
http://i.imgur.com/vFPjK.png
Hey man. I have a very similure drawing in my DMR files.
In a FFP optic I also was using the outer bold portions to ceate a aiming bracket like a inverted German #4 reticle. Think of the S&B CQB mixed with their P3L/P4L reticles. As you zoomed up they would disappair.
1x8, covered turrets, with a SFP 4 MOA Aimpoint Advanced Circuit Efficiency Technology (ACET) dot. 30mm a large adjusting mech like the "CAT" tails used on 3 gun rifles.
Come on optics MFG's go beat down Aimpoint to let you use their damn tech to make this.
Hey man. I have a very similure drawing in my DMR files.
In a FFP optic I also was using the outer bold portions to ceate a aiming bracket like a inverted German #4 reticle. Think of the S&B CQB mixed with their P3L/P4L reticles. As you zoomed up they would disappair.
1x8, covered turrets, with a SFP 4 MOA Aimpoint Advanced Circuit Efficiency Technology (ACET) dot. 30mm a large adjusting mech like the "CAT" tails used on 3 gun rifles.
Come on optics MFG's go beat down Aimpoint to let you use their damn tech to make this.
That sounds interesting. I'd be interested in taking a look at it, as I can't quite picture it based on the description.
I've often wondered myself if it's possible to use the Aimpoint tech in an optic like this. You could just turn it off when not needed and have a fine crosshair for quartering targets. That's the downside of the illuminated reticle: you almost have to have some kind of bold dot in the middle for acquisition purposes at low magnification, but you inevitably sacrifice precision when you're using the main crosshair for aiming and dialing elevation. But then again, it's too easy on my reticle, for example, to simply dial one or two less MILS and hold on the fine crosshairs one or two MILS down. And you'll be holding elevation and wind the vast majority of the time anyway. Even still, an Aimpoint dot would definitely be a better solution, I think.
Come on optics MFG's go beat down Aimpoint to let you use their damn tech to make this.
One would think that from a purely business standpoint this would be really advantageous to Aimpoint since all they would have to do is license their technology out.
AOcake,
It's fundamentaly no different that your drawing. Just think of you outer bold reticle points as aiming aids at low power. Your fine stadia ghost out below about 2.5x. Basicly its a reticle within a reticle, depending on the power. We can split the IP fee's on the patent if we can get it to scale. :big_boss:
http://pro-patria.us/DMR/Reticle-01.bmp
S&B P3
http://www.schmidtundbender.de/images/stories/absehen/absehen-p3l-1be.jpg
This is one of several variations that I have done on various exsisting optics. Your design has preety much the same format.
From my limited experiance with FFP optics I found the reticles are more focused on the high power precision aspects of the reticle, than using them at low power, fast at close range. With my old assed eyes on some optis at 1x I couldn't even see the reticle with the illum on. The theroy is that the outer posts give you a quick ablity to bracket the target even if the battery is out, while as you dail up the magnification the ranging reticle portion becomes more visible and the #4 posts are dialed out.
Realy on old concept, applied againt new tech.
I can't seem to find it, but I thought I saw that the Leupold Mark VI's have the SFP red dot illumination. The S&B 1-8's (http://www.schmidtundbender.de/en/products/police-and-military-forces/1-8x24-pm-ii-shortdot.html)do have a SFP red dot:
The extreme magnification range has considerably expanded the scope's range of applications. The fine reticle in the first focal plane permits precise firing up to a distance of 800 m. Due to the ShortDot in the second focal plane the model may be used like a red dot sight at short distances – the red dot will not follow the magnification.
Like this? This is a reticle that I worked up for this kind of application a while back. I'm not sure how I feel about the hollow circle business with the H27, but I've never used one so who knows.
http://i.imgur.com/vFPjK.png
Get rid of the horizontal stadia on the lower part and go with something like the Gen2XR and I'd take that in a 1-6/8 all day long.
If they had put the Gen2XR in the Premier 1-8 they were talking about I would have bought 3 of them day one. SFP red dot plus usable FFP reticle w/holds should be damn near invincible. With all of the excellent reticle designs out these days, I don't know why someone would settle for a bog standard mil-dot.
:stop:
first MARSOC M110K1's like the first Mk11 Mod0's - we fix it fast.
why did marsoc go to the m110k1? wasn't the m110 originally an army contract?
Failure2Stop
12-30-14, 14:19
why did marsoc go to the m110k1? wasn't the m110 originally an army contract?
The SASS/M110 was an Army led program/contract, that other services can buy off of.
The USMC M110 has a different pack-out than the Army, agreed upon and worked out between the procurement arms of each service, which replaces the giant coffin and large number of ancillary items of the Army kit.
MARSOC had a program for a 16" 7.62 platform, and chose one that they could apply to their Mk11s and M110s. They retain the ability to have a 20" gun for the times that calls for it, as well as a 16" gun for times that mobility outweighs ~100 fps of muzzle velocity. Probably most important; they have optics that optimally suit each application.
The SASS/M110 was an Army led program/contract, that other services can buy off of.
The USMC M110 has a different pack-out than the Army, agreed upon and worked out between the procurement arms of each service, which replaces the giant coffin and large number of ancillary items of the Army kit.
MARSOC had a program for a 16" 7.62 platform, and chose one that they could apply to their Mk11s and M110s. They retain the ability to have a 20" gun for the times that calls for it, as well as a 16" gun for times that mobility outweighs ~100 fps of muzzle velocity. Probably most important; they have optics that optimally suit each application.
this sounds like the government working correctly, which no one believes ever happens.
MARSOC had a program for a 16" 7.62 platform, and chose one that they could apply to their Mk11s and M110s. They retain the ability to have a 20" gun for the times that calls for it, as well as a 16" gun for times that mobility outweighs ~100 fps of muzzle velocity. Probably most important; they have optics that optimally suit each application.
this sounds like the government working correctly, which no one believes ever happens.
You're talking a small number of rifles spread over three battalions -- not the entire Marine Corps.
You're talking a small number of rifles spread over three battalions -- not the entire Marine Corps.
yeah but the horror stories that people post would suggest the government would make a huge pork contract for a few hundred rifles, or make 5 generationsof tests to "find" the best rifle, but stick with the old unupgraded version.
USMC_Anglico
12-31-14, 07:40
yeah but the horror stories that people post would suggest the government would make a huge pork contract for a few hundred rifles, or make 5 generationsof tests to "find" the best rifle, but stick with the old unupgraded version.
There is a big difference between SOCOM procurement and big military procurement. It is a much faster, better process. Not perfect by any means but looks light years ahead of the rest of the DoD.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.