U.S. Army Upgrades To .300 Winchester Magnum

The Strategy Page ^ | 10/7/2010 | The Strategy Page

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

The U.S. Army has ordered 3,600 upgrade kits for its M24 bolt-action sniper rifles, which will convert them to the M24E1. This will turn the existing 7.62mm M24 rifles into ones capable of firing the .300 Winchester magnum (7.62x67) round. This is a more powerful round than the NATO 7.62x51 round currently used in the M24. The conversion kit includes a new receiver and barrel, a new scope, a new flash suppressor and a folding buttstock. The conversion will take five years and will cost about $7,800 per rifle. Last year, the army ordered 38.4 million rounds of .300 Winchester magnum ammunition for its newly modified M-24 sniper rifles, as well as similar SOCOMs Mk13 models. The new ammo costs about $1.30 per round. The .300 Winchester magnum ammo is ordered in minimum lots of 56,160 rounds (117 boxes of 480 rounds each). The entire 38.4 million rounds will last a while.

All this is in response to requests from snipers for a longer range weapon, but not one as bulky and heavy as the 13.6 kg (30 pound) .50 caliber/12.7mm rifle (which is good to about 2,000 meters). Thus the army is modifying existing M24 rifles to fire the more powerful .300 Winchester Magnum round. It was felt that this gave the snipers all the additional range they needed, without requiring a much heavier rifle. SOCOM has been using this approach since the early 1990s.

[CapnJack]

“How is replacing the receiver, barrel, stock, and scope a “conversion”?

You pretty much have a brand new rifle at that point.”

What a laugh, exactly. Just order up a bunch of new Win Mags and sell the old M24s through the CMP (so I can get my grubby hands on one).

[riverrunner]

Up grading a 7.62x51 base rifle to 300WM with out a lot of fuss. What a joke If the action was long enough Minimum it would take is a new bolt,new barrel or re-chamber,new magazine parts, that would be only if the mag well was big enough to handle the much bigger 300WM casing. Other wise one would need a new stock also.

Would be cheaper just to build a whole new rifle. The time spend paying some one to convert would more then pay for the action. Even more so when your are the goverment and don't have to worry about all the firearm Regulations that we mere mortals have to deal with.

I guess it depends on what a lot of fuss means.

[sbark]

Shoulda’ went to 7mm STW....

[mad_as_he$$]

Something wrong with this story. All sniper rifles currently have rounds loaded specifically for that rifle by hand. Just saw this on Top Sniper. They also said they are moving to 338 Lapua. Is it possible this is the new squad marksman weapon - not the sniper weapon?

[Still Thinking]

This (7.62x67) is a more powerful round than the NATO 7.62x51

I sorta assumed that from the extra 5/8" of powder space.

[Still Thinking]

How much is a brand new rifle? It isn’t $8,000>

It is if you're selling rifles and you hear the customer pays $1,000 for toilet seats! Seriously, selling to the government incurs A LOT of overhead.

I used to have a friend that had a company making trusses for buildings. He did a couple jobs making trusses for medical facilities (for which a state department served as the plan checkers) and priced them like he would the same trusses for any other building. Nothing special about them technically, but the paperwork and engineering review he had to endure made it unfeasible for him to even take the jobs. So another one comes along, he bids it at triple the price (a polite way of saying no-bid) and he gets the job anyway! Anytime government gets involved in anything, it gets more expensive.

[Daaave]

You're welcome.

Night vision? Yes. defenseindustrydaily.com

XM110SASS SemiAutomaticSniperSystem

SR-25

Australian troops with the SR-25. Mk11 Mod 0. militaryphotos.net

Google/SR-25+sniper+rifle

Google/XM110SASS+sniper+rifle

You're very welcome. I really enjoy looking at and learning more about certain guns. Dave.

[GenXteacher]

Cheytac Intervention... .408 Cal. 30lbs though- might not be as handy as the M24. But if we needed to save money, needed a lighter gun, one of these might do- they hit pretty hard at long range:

[ctdonath2]

Looks like all kinds of places to get caught and hung up on stuff. Too many holes, knobs, and sharp edges. Only good for extreme long range, not close range crawls.

[ctdonath2]

I don’t think the military cares what the BATF thinks.

[NVDave]

If the military still made the weapons, they would not care what the BATF thinks. That situation in small arms ceased to be with the demise of the Armory system in 1968.

Now, private companies make weapons for the military, and private companies have to comply with BATF(E) rules and regulations. And when we talk of “what constitutes a gun?” the answer from the BATF is “the receiver - the part with the serial number.”

That’s it. Put in a new receiver, you’ve created a new gun, with a new serial #. The old receiver can be disposed of as being built into another gun, destroyed or re-numbered (if you have a type 07 FFL).