Comments on: Don’t SASS me

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Sun, 22 May 2005 22:09:48 +0000

Could just be supplemental but accounts i’ve read indicate replacement.

By: Brad

Brad — Sun, 22 May 2005 21:09:44 +0000

I would think the recoil from a .300 Win Mag cartridge would negate the speed advantages of a semi-automatic action.

So cost wise it makes the most sense to use existing stocks of M-14 rifles, rebuilt to the new standards. I believe this is already the practice with Stryker Brigades, issuing one scoped M-14 to every infantry squad.

The Styker deployment of the M-14 is not the same as replacing the bolt-action M-24 sniper rifle. Are you sure the M-24 is being replaced with a semi-auto as opposed to just supplemented with a semi-auto?

By: jed

jed — Sat, 21 May 2005 15:20:04 +0000

Why is it that all the new rounds these days have such boring names. I mean, “RSAUM”? Same for the new Winchesters, Rugers, and Hornadys. Yeah, they want their brand name on the cartridge designation, but I think their marketing people could come up with something a little more catchy than “short magnum” or “short action ultra magnum”. It’s not as if I expect a big American company to do use a name like the .240 Page Super Pooper, or the Poacher’s Pet, but these cartridge names which are devoid of anything non-descriptive are getting pretty boring.

By: trainer

trainer — Fri, 20 May 2005 18:24:18 +0000

Valid arguments on both sides v. rifles and semi-autos. I would expect the Gov’mint would keep both in the pipe for different roles.

Sniping from the inside of a room on the 4th floor in a urban environment surrounded by security would require a different weapon than what was needed for crawling thru the weeds in hostile territory to make a body shot at 1000 yards.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Fri, 20 May 2005 14:22:13 +0000

I’ve always heard the 7.62X51 referred to as 7.62 Nato.

By: Nate

Nate — Fri, 20 May 2005 14:18:31 +0000

7.62×54? Do you mean 7.62×51 NATO? 7.62×54R is the wonderful commie rifle cartridge. Granted, I’d take a .30-06 instead, but you can’t beat a $100 mosin shooting $.07 ammo at about MOA. Anyway… off topic.

Of course, another problem with the semi-auto is brass goes flinging out with each shot. So, whereas you don’t have to move your arm to reload, you don’t have any control over how carefully or when you work the action. Yes, you can follow up quickly, but you lose the ability to not leave brass behind and not fling shiny objects into the air, potentially revealing your position. Also, accurate rifles have to be made to fine tolerances. Fine tolerances don’t like dirt/grime/whatever. Granted, it’s not a standard battle/assault rifle so it could be kept cleaner, but making it to tolerances that allow for bolt-action like accuracy will make it less reliable in less than ideal conditions.

Anyway… just my unqualified ramblings.

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 18 May 2005 21:36:14 +0000

Having taught both of these weapons systems recently to army shooters here is my 2 cents worth:

1. 7.62X54 is the way to go. It’s in the supply chain. The 118LR with a 175 gr Sierra is more than enough bullet. Anything over 1500 yards is far enough out to call the Air Force…or shoot with a .50 cal.

2. The M24 Bolt gun is a REALLY GREAT gun. Easier to shoot and maintain than the M21. If we are insistent on dropping it, the AR10 weapon is easier to shoot and nearly as easy to maintain, plus it echos the M16 design, which IMHO, is the design that needs to be continued. (XM8 fixes everything NOT wrong with the M16..)

3.1/2 MOA is closer than most shooters are going to hold. It’s enough.

I would enthusiastically support adoption of the AR10 design shooting M852 and M118LR. IMHO it would blend in faster, train and maintain better, and is all the gun the snipers or SDM needs.

By: One Man Gang

One Man Gang — Wed, 18 May 2005 19:35:07 +0000

Do any of them have “Have a Nice Day” inscribed on the muzzle?

If not, it should be in the gov’t specs!

By: Heartless Libertarian

Heartless Libertarian — Wed, 18 May 2005 18:33:26 +0000

You know, that M1A Tactical looks a whole lot like the even-more-venerable-than-the-M24 M21, except I think the M21 retained the iron sights and the M1A has a fancy new more adjustable stock.

And I’m not sure if they still make it, but don’t forget the PSG-1.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Wed, 18 May 2005 18:11:13 +0000

Ooops. Poor wording on my part. I meant more powder comapared to a round of comparable length.

By: PawPaw

PawPaw — Wed, 18 May 2005 18:00:11 +0000

You say that: “which, though shorter, is comparable to the 300 WinMag because the case is wider and holds more powder”

Be careful, you are falling into a common trap. The 300 Win Mag will hold 72 grains of H4350, a common powder for loading that round. The 300 RSAUM will only hold 65.5 grains of the same H4350. What makes the new short action cartridges so interesting is that the chambers are built to specs that make the best use of the available space. Most of them manage to equal the ballistics of the parent cartridge with less powder.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Wed, 18 May 2005 14:23:25 +0000

That is generally true as a rifle with fewer moving parts is typically more accurate than one with more moving parts. However, semi-autos these days are so finely tuned that they shoot as accurately as many bolt guns. A recent Chuck Taylor match was won with an FN-FAL, the only semi in the group. Plus, a review I read on the AR-10 showed that the author repeatedly hit 1/2 MOA groups.

By: cube

cube — Wed, 18 May 2005 14:19:47 +0000

I thought i had read that semi-auto siper rifles were less accurate than their bolt action counter parts.

It was a link from the coridte carnivial this last friday, if i remember correctly.

Is that ture? And if they are less accurate, are they less accurate enough to matter.