Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 136

Thread: M110

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,246
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jsummers View Post
    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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Southern Pines, NC
    Posts
    14
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,246
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by roymorrison View Post
    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.
    Last edited by a0cake; 11-03-11 at 10:24.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    46
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    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.
    Last edited by infidelprodigy; 11-02-11 at 23:29.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Midland, Georgia
    Posts
    2,058
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,246
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by sinister View Post
    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.
    Last edited by a0cake; 11-03-11 at 11:13.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    67
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NoVa
    Posts
    2,906
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    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 S. Boland
    Manager, Federal Sales
    FN America, LLC
    Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 407-451-4544 | Fax: 703.288.4505
    www.fnhusa.com

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2,246
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    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.
    Last edited by a0cake; 11-03-11 at 12:11.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NoVa
    Posts
    2,906
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    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.



    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 S. Boland
    Manager, Federal Sales
    FN America, LLC
    Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 407-451-4544 | Fax: 703.288.4505
    www.fnhusa.com

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •