Hello fellas, wanted to give my opinion. The 7.62 is a great mid-range sniper round and the rifles we use serve their purpose nicely. The .50s are flat out awesome when it comes to long range power but are freaking huge. I would like a weapon that fills the gap. I would be more then happy to have an M24 converted to 300winmag. A .338 in the form of a Lapua or Edge would be even better. I have shot both and ballistically they are the same. I had Kirby build me an Edge because I wanted Lapua performance on a tighter budget. Either of those would fill the 7.62-.50 gap. One problem we have is the military not giving us what we want and giving us crap we won't even use. Example: We use armored hummers to get to and fro. We get in from a 3 day mission and they have installed a $70,000 thermal sight on our SPARE truck. They had to put it on one of our trucks(thank you 82nd for telling us what we need). Every squad is getting one and most of them were unwanted and will never get used. But some jacka$$ behind a desk thinks the P.O.S. is cool.
Our biggest problem is, you guessed it, rules of engagement. They are getting pretty gay! They detained 6 Iraqis the other day whom they FILMED setting up an IED, four of whom had AKs and two had hand grenades. That my friend is shoot on sight and they were detained!!!! That is also why we get artillery and air support. Plus on the way back in we got in a small ambush. I say small ambush, a few idiots popping up from behind a berm shooting small arms at us. I happened to be behind our vehicles .50 and between me and two others fired about 600 rounds and 5 HE 203 rounds. I had to go see the Brigade commander about why we fired so many rounds and only took about 100! I simply said " Sir, suppressive fire is when you fire at known and suspected enemy positions to keep them from firing on you and I like to think they only fired that many rounds because we didn't give them the chance to be more effective." I had to explain this to a Full Bird. Did we go overboard....maybe....were we effective....HELL YES! One of my troops got reprimanded for shooting a warning shot at a vehicle without holding his weapon up and showing the guy the damn thing first. This was after he flashed the guy with a spot light and shot a flare at him. I could go on and on.......
Kirby, I used to be one of those guys before this war who patrolled the border and call in air craft. Things have happened there that people/news doesn't hear about. The no-fly zone was just that and not a demilitarized zone. We could be within eye sight of Iraqi Army and they would never know we were there.....unless they pushed their luck. And they did use aircraft as decoys. If we thought they were up to no good we would call in a low flying fast mover to see if they would fire on them.
Courage is just fear that has said it's prayers.
The people trying to say the 2nd Amendment is outdated are probably the same folks that would say the same thing about the Bible.
It is interesting that the members of this forum mostly agree about what to use for 1500+ capability. Everyone has there own variations but the theme is mostly the same. The problem is that there is no free lunch. With 1500+ capability comes less barrel life, more recoil etc. for the most part. If they really need 1500+ capability (although I believe that this is limited use) then they should get it.
Its to bad its not like it was in WWII. Let the military fight the war, keep the damn press out of the war zone or at least prevent them from reporting until the damn thing is over. War is dirty and often ugly, the press is why the US citizens are not in favor of this war and its the politicians that are tieing our troops hands behind their backs or using them for bait.
Kirby, I agree 100% that the press causes lot of problems for the military. The enemy knows this and use it to their advantage. If you watch footage of WWII bombings of berlin, there isn't any media to comdem us for civilian causualties. They are a part, albeit an ugly part, of war.
I do have to disagree with you that the press is the reason most americans are against the war. I think many just believe that we should have done more to go after Osama than Sadam. Plus, the lack of WMD wasn't good for support either.
Not sure where the info about problems with the 308 at 800 is coming from. The 308 is a decent mid range round, not bad and not great but decent. Now not many like a 17 lb 308 gun though.
Real interesting article in Nov precision shooting about the new DARPA designed 308 shooting in excess of 800 with first rd hits and that is at NIGHT, sub MOA at 1000 and with only 18.5" 1-10 twist Hart barrel and 13 lbs with can. Check their website , it was still up last week.
You can pretty much forget wildcats, and the Marines have worked the 338 Lapua with the British Paras last year at Quantico.
Even if they adopt the 338, the 308 will stay and they will still work (along with everyone else the ultra long range 375 in all probability. Lot of work on both military and civilian side there.
I would have to say that the 338LM is probably the best choice for possible acceptance by the Military. It would be a great choice from a user/soilder stand point.
Is it the best?---Probably not. But may be the most favorable option in providing our troops like Bravo4(Thanks for your service to our great country!!!) and other men and women in our military a far better option to the .308.
I share the same passion(level of being pissed-off) as Kirby. Between our far left media and the ever increasing number of bleeding heart liberals on capitol hill---it's amazing our guys aren't over there with pop-guns, so as not to hurt anyone. As far as our guys being decoys sometimes, well thats a crying shame. I say send some yellow liberal out first to try some diplomacy that they are always speaking of --when they get shot --then return fire--that seems politically correct in my world.
"GOD, GUTS, AND GUNS MADE AMERICA FREE" AND I'M KEEPING ALL THREE!
The 338 Lapua is already in use with alot of countries around the world as a precision rifle , either built by Accuracy Internatioal or Sako. the power is their with that round the data is their from many other contriesusing it. The 338 Lapua will probably be the next NATO-ized round.
In a 15lb suppressed rifle the recoil is very managable , the accuracy is great , the sound and site signature are both greatly reduced with the suppressor. The ammo seems to be pretty widely available seeing that its used by other countries.
Now if I were a sniper in Iraq right now with the possibility of the high volume shooting that can happen I'd like to know that my ammo would be alot more readly available from a high volume support weapon like the M2 with the 50 BMG rilfes or the M240 with the 308's , now granted it won't be match quality ammo you will be getting but at least it will go bang in your rifle and give you a chance.
I don't remember who built the gun , either Robar or McMillan , but a very short light weight 50BMG bolt rifle was made , it was in the area of 12-15lbs and the velocity loss with the short barrel was not as bad as expected. It was called a Desert Rhino if I'm not mistaken
The rifle in the picture I posted is the new C14 Sniper rifle of the Canadian Army. As pictured is as issued except the hole on the top right of the case is filled with a suppressor.
It a PGWDTI Timberwolf in .338LM, with a S&B 3-12x50 PMII LR on a Titanium 40MOA base w/TPS rings.