[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Marines to field multibarrel sniper rifle to replace two existing weapons (Page 2 of 2)
|
Quoted: Field swappable barrels is going to be the new standard, same for semi autos. In reality it’s pretty straightforward and works quite well. Install barrel and mount scope, go zero like you would for any other new rifle -> remove barrel, install different cartridge barrel, go zero like you would for any other rifle -> write down difference -> swap back and forth as much as you want. You dont touch the scope mount you zero the weapon to one barrel and than swap barrels and dial in that barrel and write it down and thats your zero |
|
Quoted: While I don’t care for belted magnums the use of 308 for training makes a lot of sense. Somewhat, but it is hilarious in the context of the "saving money" argument. Like the military is fiscally responsible. Quoted: That’s how it works for the large number of western units fielding rifles with that capability. Well. How often are barrel changes happening "in the field" by the end user? Not a gotcha, just genuinely curious. Reminds me of the Futureweapons circlejerk about quick changing your barrel in the middle of a gunfight so you can use your enemies ammo. |
|
Quoted: Somewhat, but it is hilarious in the context of the "saving money" argument. Like the military is fiscally responsible. Quoted: Somewhat, but it is hilarious in the context of the "saving money" argument. Like the military is fiscally responsible. I don’t think it matters for top line budget but if you X dollars for barrels annually you can shoot out 7.62 barrels slowly to do offhand shooting training instead of just not shooting. Also, I wouldn’t want to do a long week of high round count training with a 300 norma, because that shit makes you tired. How often are barrel changes happening "in the field" by the end user? Not a gotcha, just genuinely curious. Reminds me of the Futureweapons circlejerk about quick changing your barrel in the middle of a gunfight so you can use your enemies ammo. I suspect relatively little, but a field replacement ability means of you do shoot out your barrel or a truck backs over it or it catches a fragment you don’t have to send it to PWS to rebarrel. |
|
Quoted: That Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: When changing a different barrel, obviously one needs to re-zero it. Now I understand that a scope can be set and zero with different barrel, but without re-zero, then it’s just no longer “precision”. Field swappable barrels is going to be the new standard, same for semi autos. In reality it’s pretty straightforward and works quite well. Install barrel and mount scope, go zero like you would for any other new rifle -> remove barrel, install different cartridge barrel, go zero like you would for any other rifle -> write down difference -> swap back and forth as much as you want. That Fixed. It’s not some concept on the drawing board. It’s been done befo. AI, Sako, LMT, FN, etc. have all managed to crack the code. It works. Is it a feature set you care about? Maybe not, but if everyone felt that way they wouldn’t exist. |
|
Quoted: You dont touch the scope mount you zero the weapon to one barrel and than swap barrels and dial in that barrel and write it down and thats your zero Quoted: Quoted: Field swappable barrels is going to be the new standard, same for semi autos. In reality it’s pretty straightforward and works quite well. Install barrel and mount scope, go zero like you would for any other new rifle -> remove barrel, install different cartridge barrel, go zero like you would for any other rifle -> write down difference -> swap back and forth as much as you want. You dont touch the scope mount you zero the weapon to one barrel and than swap barrels and dial in that barrel and write it down and thats your zero That’s what I said. Initially you have to mount a scope and zero it like any new rifle. Then you swap barrels and re zero like you would if you were changing loads for example. |
|
Quoted: Somewhat, but it is hilarious in the context of the "saving money" argument. Like the military is fiscally responsible. How often are barrel changes happening "in the field" by the end user? Not a gotcha, just genuinely curious. Reminds me of the Futureweapons circlejerk about quick changing your barrel in the middle of a gunfight so you can use your enemies ammo. Quoted: Quoted: While I don't care for belted magnums the use of 308 for training makes a lot of sense. Somewhat, but it is hilarious in the context of the "saving money" argument. Like the military is fiscally responsible. Quoted: That's how it works for the large number of western units fielding rifles with that capability. Well. How often are barrel changes happening "in the field" by the end user? Not a gotcha, just genuinely curious. Reminds me of the Futureweapons circlejerk about quick changing your barrel in the middle of a gunfight so you can use your enemies ammo. I posted a video earlier. In it the guy that helped write the specs said 308 was kept because can't shoot the magnum rounds at a lot of military ranges-they don't have the buffer zone. Most all can accommodate 308. |
|
Quoted: Why not 2 different .300 magnum loads? Close/medium and long range. Dial the POI difference in and send your love.  It's not like sniper ammo clogs the logistics chain. And the days of handing an M1D to Willie and Joe are long over. Just seems a little overcomplicated, and they still don't have a CQB suitable weapon, like an auto could be pressed into. Wut 
|
|
Quoted: Wut Quoted: Quoted: Why not 2 different .300 magnum loads? Close/medium and long range. Dial the POI difference in and send your love. It's not like sniper ammo clogs the logistics chain. And the days of handing an M1D to Willie and Joe are long over. Just seems a little overcomplicated, and they still don't have a CQB suitable weapon, like an auto could be pressed into. Wut I’m confused as hell too. It’s alright. I think I’m just dumb. |
|
Quoted: I had a brain aneurysm the third time I read "7-by-35". Yeah. This Todd WTFever (author) writes for Air Force Times and keeps screwing up the terminology? "Multibarrel", "caliber agnostic 7-by-35 scope"... WTF? They have anti gunner/firearms clueless people writing articles about firearms for Air Force Times? |
|
Quoted: Thank you. The fuck are they trying to say? Fixed 7 power scope with 35mm objective? As someone said above, author needs to toss a bums salad. B... b... but it's moar magnifuhcayshun than the 5-by-25 scope they were previously using!  Yeah, cuz the US military snipers were using leftover scopes from WWII. 
|
|
Quoted: Yeah neat but.... Can we cut the crap. Nobody's carrying an extra barrel and extra ammo. That's some fucking bullshit. Pretty sure that's not the intent. The idea is being able to change the caliber to suit multiple missions and have a cheap trainging caliber. Similar to why the Army ordered long actions and built 308's. More options down the road. Now that barrels are easy to switch and don't require any gunsmithing it makes a lot of sense. |
|
Quoted: What in the ADHD riddled random threads of thought fucking brain drippings bullshit article was that? Half way through it I was expecting the author to shout "scrotum licker" or "ball hair." Goddamn random assed points bouncing all over fucking hell and back. Not exactly how I was going to phrase it but yeah, what this guy said. |
|
Quoted: What in the ADHD riddled random threads of thought fucking brain drippings bullshit article was that? Half way through it I was expecting the author to shout "scrotum licker" or "ball hair." Goddamn random assed points bouncing all over fucking hell and back. How agnostic of you. |
|
Quoted: Thank you for putting into words what I was thinking. Writer should toss a bum’s salad. Quoted: Quoted: What in the ADHD riddled random threads of thought fucking brain drippings bullshit article was that? Half way through it I was expecting the author to shout "scrotum licker" or "ball hair." Goddamn random assed points bouncing all over fucking hell and back. Thank you for putting into words what I was thinking. Writer should toss a bum’s salad. Dammit! You made me spill my coffee! |
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/STZR3SUSA5HILDYWZA5ET4EXZE.jpeg)
|
Quoted: https://www.airforcetimes.com/resizer/xEF-ZD2Zb_pbfdw5TR-m-LHhXYs=/1440x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/STZR3SUSA5HILDYWZA5ET4EXZE.jpeg What's this doohickey hanging off the end of the rifle? @Fugger Magnetospeed V3 Chronograph |
|
Why would they ever carry two guns? 300WM or .308? Just carry the 300. It’s not like it won’t kill something closer. Same with the new gun. F carrying extra ammo and barrel. Set it up for the current mission and dial dope accordingly. You bring what you are most comfortable with or bring the biggest and you don’t worry about not having enough. |
| I’m not the designer or implementer of this program or anything so take it for what it’s worth, but I think people poo-pooing the barrel change as unnecessary are thinking too short term. No one is bringing multiple barrels out to the field. No one will be changing them out day too day. This is something more like OIF gets .308 and OEF gets 300WM, or one trains with the cheap .308 and learns to dial and read wind but Carrie’s the 300WM, or if the military switches calibers this rifle has a ready-made ability to swap to that new round with just a new barrel change instead of designing and trialing a whole new rifle. |
|
Quoted: I am disappointed in their use of he word multibarrell. I was expecting a Gatling sniper rifle, or at least side-by-side Attached File |
|
I was expecting something with multiple barrels, like some sort of militarized Fuchs double barrel bolt-action. The MRAD is cool but that article is trash. ETA: Something like this  Szecsei & Fuchs Double Barrel Bolt Action Dangerous Game Rifle |
|
Quoted: Why would they ever carry two guns? 300WM or .308? Just carry the 300. It’s not like it won’t kill something closer. Same with the new gun. F carrying extra ammo and barrel. Set it up for the current mission and dial dope accordingly. You bring what you are most comfortable with or bring the biggest and you don’t worry about not having enough. How are people struggling with this. Sometimes say for training a 308 is perfect. Other times say shooting far, deploying etc you’re probably just going to take the 300 Norma. Not like you are going to be changing barrels daily. |
|
Folks are struggling with this concept for a few reasons. @RePp 1. They aren't in a position (or have a need) for multiple calibers on one platform. 2. They haven't seen and therefore cannot wrap their heads around a quick-change barrel that actually offers zero retention from un-mounting to mounting. 3. Their rifles do not experience schoolhouse OPTEMPO, and have the ability to select a vendor to cut and install new barrels for them in a matter of days. Few have experienced Crane taking up to a year to replace a single Mk13 barrel, or watching an M40A6 barrel get cut on a three jaw chuck with 0.004"+ runout. 4. Many people aren't limited to training with tight SDZs. I do think 300 PRC was a better option, as technically 300NM development and supply isn't actually done (and 300PRC offers a superior powder column), but the gun was a great step forward. Props to USASOC for getting it right. |
|
Quoted: How are people struggling with this. Sometimes say for training a 308 is perfect. Other times say shooting far, deploying etc you’re probably just going to take the 300 Norma. Not like you are going to be changing barrels daily. I have no idea. It's like they think these guys are going to have a backpack with all the barrels and 200 rounds for each one. |
|
Quoted: I have no idea. It's like they think these guys are going to have a backpack with all the barrels and 200 rounds for each one. It’s literally what people think is going to happen. The fact a 308 is fine for training, swap to other calibers mission depending and the big thing. Swapping barrels when you burn them out. There’s a reason everyone is going to pre fits and quick change so you can swap barrels in about 5 minutes at home. They did it right going with the MRAD. |
|
Quoted: Folks are struggling with this concept for a few reasons. @RePp 1. They aren't in a position (or have a need) for multiple calibers on one platform. 2. They haven't seen and therefore cannot wrap their heads around a quick-change barrel that actually offers zero retention from un-mounting to mounting. 3. Their rifles do not experience schoolhouse OPTEMPO, and have the ability to select a vendor to cut and install new barrels for them in a matter of days. Few have experienced Crane taking up to a year to replace a single Mk13 barrel, or watching an M40A6 barrel get cut on a three jaw chuck with 0.004"+ runout. 4. Many people aren't limited to training with tight SDZs. I do think 300 PRC was a better option, as technically 300NM development and supply isn't actually done (and 300PRC offers a superior powder column), but the gun was a great step forward. Props to USASOC for getting it right. Outside of 2 I don't know any of that either. 3 and 4 look like a foreign langauge  The literature and press releases were all pretty standard and clearly laid it out. It's a common practice to use a smaller cheaper round to practice with in the precision world. Lots of those guys build whole rifles similarly set up to their primary in 223, 308, even 22lr. |