Sako TRG M10 Sniper Weapon System

sako_trg_m10-tm-tfb

The TRG M10 is the latest sniper rifle from Finish firearm manufacturer1 Sako. Despite its name, and visual similarities with the latest Sako TRG-42, it shares nothing in common with the TRG line. The rifle is modular and can be pulled apart and switched over to another caliber in the field. Sako will initially be offering .308 Win, .300 Win Mag and .338 Lapua Mag conversion kits. Sadly, Sako is only selling this gun to military and law enforcement.

Sako TRG M-10
The older Sako TRG-42 at SHOT Show ’11

[Hat Tip: Accurate Shooter]

[ Many thanks to Zarko for emailing me the info. ]


  1. Sako is a subsidiary of Italian firm Beretta. 




Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • Shooter

    Rumor has it that this is the 22/42’s replacement platform, and will be phased in next year for the commercial market. Don’t know if that’s going to happen as anticipated, but the source was someone who should know about such things, stating that the 22/42 are about to be replaced…

    • SpudGun

      Thanks for the info Shooter, I’m a big fan of the TRG-22 so am looking forward to seeing how the M10 stacks up. The furniture is very reminiscent of Remington’s current sniper rifles, I’m wondering if Sako are buying them in or making a licensed copy.

    • JamesD

      @SpudGun,
      It does look a lot like the Remington MSR, but the Remy has a stock that folds at a single hinge point.
      The Sako clearly has a different design.

      • SpudGun

        Ah, didn’t notice that James D and I’m also a little confused as the magazine, mag well and lower receiver look exactly the same as the Barrett MRAD. I know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but every single firearm seems to be homogenising into the same design cues.

  • Ben

    I hate LE/MIL only sales – seems really odd with a bolt gun.

  • chris

    What is the “cozy” on the suppressor all about? Not sure I have seen one of those before…but now that I have – I want one for my can!

  • G
  • Lance

    Lost out to the M-2010 but looks cool I hope they sell it here for private sales.

    • Nater

      No, no it didn’t. The XM2010 was a PIP for the M24. This rifle, along with the Barrett MRAD, Accuracy International AX338, FN Ballista, Armalite AR30, Remington MSR (similar or same chassis as the XM2010) and a few others were participants in the Precision Sniper Rifle program for SOCOM. The program was recently put on the back burner, which is probably part of the reason Beretta is now trying to sell these rifles to LE agencies and eventually civilians.

  • John Doe

    The stock looks too flimsy for combat. I’m not a fan of its weight, but I know the stock on a M40A5 will not fail me.

  • Nater

    What I do not understand is why the Army didn’t go with .338 Lapua Magnum when upgrading the M24 to the M2010. .338 Lapua has so many advantages over .300 Winchester Magnum that it boggles the mind. It can hit targets at least 300m further out, it has nearly twice the barrel life, it’s not significantly larger or heavier than .300WM. It would have also worked with the M24’s long action.

    • John Doe

      Recoil, and it’s frankly overkill. Army snipers aren’t good enough to utilize that extra 300m, and frankly at .338 range, you’d be using the .50 cal issued to every sniper team*.

      *not exactly if that’s how the Army works, but that’s how Marine Scout Snipers usually do it.

      • Nater

        An Army sniper holds the US record for the longest kill and two out of the three Americans with confirmed kills beyond 1,250m are Army. The third is Carlos Hathcock.

        If you’re worried about the recoil of the .338 being too much and the cartridge being overkill, then why would you go ahead an issue .50 BMG rifles? That doesn’t hold water.

        Not to mention that there is a significant weight advantage to .338LM rifles over their .50 BMG counterparts and that any .338LM rifle will have a significant accuracy edge over an M107.

        Mk 248 Mod 1 (220gr SMK @ 2850fps) fired from a Barrett MRAD will produce 4.22 lbs-sec of recoil impulse, recoil velocity will be 9.18 ft-sec, and free recoil energy will amount to 19.36 ft-lbs. The same rifles firing a 300gr .338LM cartridge with a velocity of 2675fps will produce 5.41 lbs-sec of recoil impulse, recoil velocity will be 11.76 ft-sec, and free recoil energy will amount to 31.79 ft-lbs.

        For comparison, a Barrett M107 firing a 650gr M33 ball round will produce a recoil impulse of 13.80 lbs-sec, a recoil velocity of 13.67 ft-sec, and free recoil energy will be a massive 94.35 ft-lbs.

        If snipers are expected to handle the recoil of the M107, they shouldn’t have any trouble with a rifle chambered for .338 Lapua Magnum. They’ll gain anti-personel performance that is superior to the .50 BMG in a rifle that weighs half as much and with ammunition that weighs significantly less as well.

      • John Doe

        @Nater

        The .338LM is too good of a compromise for its own good. Under 800 yards, it’s overkill on a soft target. In an AM role, there is no way it has the sheer destructive power of the .50 BMG. The capability to fire explosive rounds will keep the .50 BMG firmly seated in the AM role for years to come.

        In my opinion, the 300WSM would be the caliber to use. It has enough accuracy and power to take out any soft target without overpenetrating. In most situations, the extra 300m in range given by the 338LM is unneeded. Barrel life is a concern though.

      • John Doe

        @Nater

        The .338LM is too good of a compromise for its own good. Under 800 yards, it’s overkill on a soft target. In an AM role, there is no way it has the sheer destructive power of the .50 BMG. The capability to fire explosive rounds will keep the .50 BMG firmly seated in the AM role for years to come.

        In my opinion, the 300WSM would be the caliber to use. It has enough accuracy and power to take out any soft target without overpenetrating. In most situations, the extra 300m in range given by the 338LM is unneeded.

    • JamesD

      Ultimately, I think it was a compromise.
      Without knowing exactly what the criteria for it’s choice was, we and only guess exactly why.

      We know the military wanted something flatter shooting and with a longer range than the 7.62 NATO. But I think they didn’t want to add a lot of weight/cost over the M24. Ammo for the .300 Win Mag is a lot cheaper than for the .338 and the rifles are a bit lighter. The .300 Win Mag may also have a lower risk of civilian casualties in an urban area since it’s not going to penetrate as much.

      Barrel life is not that much of an issue. I believe M24s go back to the the armory or manufacturer to change barrels, but the new rifle can have it’s barrel swapped in the field. That is definitely quicker and has to be cheaper than the M24 even if they require more frequent barrel changes.

      Snipers still need the 50 because of it’s penetration capability, something the .338 can’t match. So they already have an extreme long range sniper rifle.

      • Nater

        Barrel life is an issue when you’re talking about the operating costs of a system. A .308 barrel lasts up to 10,000 rounds, a .338LM barrel lasts around 2,500-3,000 rounds, but a .300WM barrel only lasts about 1,500. You’re going to have to replace barrels nearly twice as often.

        The weight difference is minimal at best. An XM2010 weighs .3lbs less than Remington’s very similar MSR rifle chambered in .338LM. The ammunition itself obviously weighs a little bit more, but not dramatically so.

        I just don’t see any good reason for why the Army went with .300WM instead of .338LM. None at all.

      • JamesD

        Have you actually looked at the cost of .338 Lapua ammo?
        If you buy 20 at a time there is about $100 a box difference between it and the Win Mag.

        For 3000 rounds (the high figure you list of when the Lapua barrel wears out) that’s $15,000 difference. Even if military ammo is only 1/4 the price, the difference will more than pay for the extra barrel. Not only that, it will probably pay for a new rifle by the time the Lapua goes through it’s 2nd barrel.

        BTW, and I’ve found messages on forums where a .300 Win Mag rifle has fired over 4400 rounds and will still shooting 1/2 MOA. So I think it’s safe to say 1500 is worst case.

        Barrel life is going to depend on whether the sniper fires a round here or there, or whether he fires one round after another all day long in a fire fight. If you cook the barrel, it’s not going to last long in either caliber.

      • Nater

        Do you really think the military pays that kind of money for it’s massive orders of ammunition? Seriously? Of course they don’t. What does .50 BMG cost to a civilian? $2, $3 per cartridge for M33. The Air Force pays $.36 per round. The military can leverage large economies of scale and lock in price through contracts. Ammunition costs are way down the list as far as importance goes.

        There are numerous instances where SOF and regular forces have not been able to reach out and engage opposing forces in the 1200-2000m range. Instead they have to call on air support. .338LM is very inexpensive when compared with a JDAM that’s not even adding in the air craft operation costs. $30k for a JDAM versus $40 for twenty rounds of .338LM.

        Worst case scenario? This is a military rifle, worst case scenarios can be expected to take place and take place fairly regularly. This isn’t some bench rest rifle that an OFWG shoots at paper for a hobby. It’s going to be fired heavily in training, it’s going to be fired heavily in combat.

        Messages on a forum are just that. Messages on a forum. Someone can say whatever they want, who knows if it’s true.

      • Nater

        .50 sniper rifles penetration capability…against what? Vehicles? Sure. But not against personnel. The enemy in Afghanistan doesn’t even wear body armor. Not to mention, .338LM is going to be able to punch through armor and intermediate barriers out to much greater ranges than .300WM. Just another argument for it.

      • JamesD

        FWIW, you quoted a low barrel life for the .300 Win Mag that you picked from somewhere on the internet, and then you said “Messages on a forum are just that. Messages on a forum. Someone can say whatever they want, who knows if it’s true.” That can be said for your number as well.

        The source below shows the military is paying just under $1.30 per round (if they max out the contract) for .300 Win Mag ammo. $49,900,000 / (80,100 boxes * 480 rounds per box) = $1.29785685/round.
        $.36 per round for BMG? In what decade was that?
        FWIW, that means the military is paying MORE per round than we can get it for by buying it a 20 round box at a time.
        If you think .338 Lapua, which is only made by a handful of companies, is going to be anywhere near that price / round you are delusional.
        http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/USA-Orders-499M-in-300-Winchester-Magnum-Ammo-05493/

        FWIW, someone posted they spent over $4 every time they fired their .338 Lapua. Since you don’t actually seem to own one I think I’ll take their word over yours.
        At around $3 saved per round that’s more than what the M24 reconfiguration cost per rifle after 3000 rounds. ($7800 / rifle to reconfigure them). Actually, you probably save enough to pay for the extra barrel AND the rifle by the time the Lapua gets to the first barrel change. I couldn’t find any published contract info for .338 Lapua but you can find the M24 reconfiguration cost here:
        http://tamtac.wordpress.com/tag/338-lapua/

        The reason for the upgrade is because militants are shooting down hill from the mountains which gives them greater range and they are difficult to hit with the 7.62 NATO. The .300 Win Mag lets our soldiers snipe from one ridge to the next.
        http://www.sniperinfo.com/forum/showthread.php?961-XM2010-Enhanced-Sniper-Rifle-Remington-receives-contract-to-upgrade-M24-sniper-rifles/page2

        If you look at the list of longest sniper kills you’ll find #8 was achieved by a 7.62 NATO and that was just over 1300 yards. That should tell you something. That means only 8 kills have been made over 1300 yards. That puts everything else within range of the .300 Win Mag.

        Record distance shots sound spectacular, but they make up a very tiny portion of all sniper shots. Most shots will be in the hundreds of yards, not thousands. A sniper isn’t like a howitzer, you don’t call in a shot from a really long distance to cover troops. Snipers are deployed to cover troops from a distance that is within range.

      • Nater

        The Air Force pays $1.80 for a link section of four API and one API-T rounds. That’s $.36 per round. It’s information that is two years old.

        Yeah, I did pick the 1,500 round count from the internet, from Gary Roberts. I think his knowledge on the subject qualifies him to a much greater degree than some guy on a forum.

        You’re also completely ignoring the fact that $30,000 bombs have to be dropped on guys that are beyond the reach of sniper rifles. $4 a round for .338LM is dirt cheap in comparison.

        Lastly, how are there supposed to be large numbers of engagements of enemy personnel when most of the soldiers and Marines on the ground don’t have the equipment to do so? The M107 and it’s 3MOA accuracy really isn’t cut out for that role, especially with the de-linked machine gun ammunition that is generally in use.

        The .300WM has more downsides compared to the .338LM than upsides. It’s cheaper and the cartridges themselves are lighter. The US military will eventually go to a cartridge like .338 Lapua or .338 Norma, so it makes little sense to even bother with the .300WM. It’s a waste.

      • JamesD

        Do us all a favor and post links to your sources.
        I can’t find anything to back up the cost of 50 BMG you posted.
        Although, I may have found a source that can tell me exactly what the military pays for ammo including .338 Lapua if they buy any.

        The .308 has such long barrel life because you don’t have enough case volume for any higher velocity loads.
        The 30-06 only adds a few hundred fps and velocities normally stay under 3000 fps, so it has good barrel life. It does have the advantage of being able to use heavier bullets without compressing the load.
        The .338 Lapua Magnum has a heavier bullet and larger bore diameter. The velocity I found for it was 2500 fps which places it squarely in the longer lasting barrel group.
        The .300 Win Mag has a much larger case volume than 30-06 and pushes bullets well over 3000 fps. It will have more barrel wear as a result but heavier bullets should bring velocities close to max 30-06 speed levels and increase barrel life. What range they would have I can’t say.

        As for the good Dr. Gary Roberts, his results only apply to his test conditions & methodology. And since I can’t find those, I really can’t say for sure if anything is wrong with his results. I couldn’t get the search on the tactical forums to turn up the original info.
        The number from Gary seems to be a one size fits all number. Call it a hunch but I think he’d go with 165 or 168 grain bullets only and heavier rounds weren’t tested.

        Now… I said before that I have no idea why the military made the choice they did. I’m going to change directions here because I’ve been doing some reading and I think I know why the .300 Win Mag was chosen.

        I saw mention of an open SOCOM contract for something similar to the .338 Lapua. After reading through the specs and about the acquisition process I was reminded of some of my experience with govt contracts and purchasing.

        Purchasing an entirely new weapons system requires a very lengthy process that can take years. The SOCOM contract won’t be awarded until April of next year and delivery may not begin until months afterwards.

        Upgrading an existing weapon system is much easier and quicker to achieve. Approval may only take a few months and approval for testing a prototype in the field could take very little time at all.

        When the M24 was introduced, it was mentioned that it could be upgraded to 30-06 or .300 Win Mag. I don’t think .338 Lapua would have counted as an upgrade under govt rules and regs because it wasn’t originally listed as a possible upgrade.
        So… I think the .300 Win Mag was chosen because they could start getting them on the battlefield NOW.

        Even though it’s called an “upgrade” I think it’s safe to say they are just new weapons and this was a tactic to skirt the rules because a longer range weapon was needed ASAP.

        Now, just because the .338 Lapua is one of the best sniper rounds does not mean that’s what will win the SOCOM contract. There are now several competitors that may be just as good for accuracy but have more punch against armor. The 18 lbs weight limit will keep some of the larger rounds out of the competition though. (do you think they chose that because they want it under 20 lbs with the scope?)

        The SOCOM rifle competition specs can be found here:
        http://kitup.military.com/2011/05/socom-precision-sniper-rifle-psr-update.html

      • Nater

        http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/blafmunicosts.htm

        It’s from ’01, I thought it was from ’09 for some reason. Assuming the price doubled in the intervening ten years, the Air Force is paying $3.27 for an M9 link with four ball and one tracer round or $4.68 for four rounds of API and one round of API-T. Those prices are significantly less than what a civilian would pay.

        The PSR program has been put on the back burner for the time being. No one questions that the rifles, if they ever see service, will be chambering either .338 Lapua or .338 Norma magnums. The later is very similar to .338 Lapua but being slightly shorter and optimized for a 300gr projectile instead of one weighing 250gr.

      • JamesD

        I hate to break it to you but copper (the main ingredient in brass) has been at an all time high this year.
        In 2000-2003 it was under $100/lb, the historical high of $457.95/lb was set in February if this year. It has recently dropped a bit but you can expect it to go up again.
        http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodity/copper

        So brass (the alloy) alone has gone up about 4.5 times in cost and the cost of living/manufacturing has also gone up significantly. That’s why I paid more for a bag of 50 brass this month than I paid for a bag of 100 of the same thing before Obama was elected. I just wish I had purchased it 10 years ago.

        On top of that, the price you quoted is machine gun rounds, probably not the more accurate sniper rounds. And they probably purchase that in much larger quantity than sniper rounds. Probably 100,000+ vs 10,000 at a time. Expect .338 to be purchased in lots similar in size to the .300 Win Mag contract.
        If a contract for .338 ammo were written in 2001, they would be dirt cheap. But now a manufacturer has to account for volatility in the price of copper so there will be more padding in the markup to account for it.

        Besides, I was merely speculating as to why the military went with .300 Win Mag. I still think the total cost of the Win Mag is going to be cheaper even if barrel life is that low. But I don’t think that was actually considered in the decision in this case.

        The .338 is a great sniper round and it clearly has superior ballistics to the .300 Win Mag. When I went looking for a long range rifle I wanted a .338 Lapua myself. Then I priced one, it’s ammo, reloading dies… and then I went out and bought a .300 Win Mag. Whenever I start to think I might have liked the Lapua better, I just go price a box of ammo and leave the store with a box of .300 Win Mag ammo instead and a smile on my face.
        But someone did introduce a semi-auto .338 so it’s looking interesting again. Hmmmm…

      • JamesD

        Current prices our govt. supposedly pays for ammo. I’m not sure how long numbers stay in the database but I’d guess higher numbers are most recent and represent more accurate or specialty rounds.

        7.62 NATO $.55-$1.27
        50 BMG $1.93-$3.20
        .338 Lapua not listed

  • http://Sniperhide Dan

    Afew years back I had a choice in purchasing the TRG im .338 Lupua rifle. I passed on it and when with the Dakota .338 bolt action. Now I have another opportunity to go with the TRG M10. when availble. If nothing else it a great looking weapon. My $.02

  • Ilkka

    I can’t wait to shoot one at work. At Sako. Best place to score a quality control job in Finland :D