New Zealand Army adopts LMT AR-10 for new Designated Marksman Rifle
The New Zealand Army has adopted the Lewis Machine & Tool LMT .308 AR-10 rifle as their Designated Marksman Rifle. Last year British Army also adopted the LMT 308 as a designated marksman rifle.
The rifle looks to be a similar configuration to the British L129A1. The differences that I can see are the use of a Leopold 4.5-14X scope instead of a fixed power Trijicon scope, a foldable foregrip and backup iron sights mounted at a 45 angle. This is the first time I can recall a military AR-15/AR-10 rifle being issued with angled iron sights.
I have shot the LMT 308 and I was incredibly impressed. Hitting targets with it was just to easy.
[ Many thanks to WhaleOil for emailing me the link. ]
some people seem to overexaggerate the differences in 308 and 7.62 for whatever reason. Modern mil spec rifles are designed to use both effectively. My M1A loves commercial 308.
Not really Ive shot 7.62mm NATO in a bolt action rifle meant for .308 and no damage no real change in performance. Same shooting .308 in a 7.62X51 NATO M-14 or M-110.
as have I lance
some people seem to overexaggerate the differences in 308 and 7.62 for whatever reason. Modern mil spec rifles are designed to use both effectively. My M1A loves commercial 308.
The M-14 was a sniper rifle but was called the M-21. The M-21 and M-14 are DMRs NOT sniper rifles since all M-14 actions in 08 will be enhanced to EBR status.. Though with EBR enhancements they are very accurate and cal almost match a M-110 (M-110 has a little edge in accuracy).
The SCAR 17 and Mk-20 have been around since 09-10 according to FN most SOCOM sniper ditched the Mk-20 while the 17 is the only SCAR version to get much military use. Most choose M-110s because they share similar parts to the M-4A1 in SOCOM use and are more comfortable to shoot with less recoil. The Mk-20 was to be pushed aside by the SOCOM PSR competition but it was postponed after budget cuts this year.
Most sniper still use bolt action rifles and many prefer them hence the M-2010 and M-40A5 which are brand new bolt action rifles in military service.
Agree John Doe?
Spot on, except for the fact that the M21 is an actual sniper rifle. Many SpecOps guys prefer their M14 variants over the M4 for power, and the EBRs are actually somewhat controllable in fully automatic.
Bolt action usage isn’t due to it necessarily more accurate, but for reliability in less than ideal conditions, and snipers just like ‘em.
Hitting targets with it was just to easy.
Hitting targets with it was just ‘TOO’ easy?
Yes but most SOCOM operators prefer the M-110 over other rifles in SOCOM invantory got the most accuracy and bust ergonomics.
And we all know how important bust ergonomics are!
They got one of them new Lee-OH-Pold scopes on there, eh Steve?
Oh thank Jebus, I thought I was the only one who mispronounces Leupold as Leopold. My other great firearm speech impedients include Sig Sauer (Sour), Hornady (Hor-nandy), Hecklar and Koch (kotch) and Schmessier (shmiser).
Weirdly enough, I’ll also pronounce carbine in two different ways – car-been and car-byne. Sometimes in the same sentence. I even had to ask on this blog the correct way of saying Vltor.
So don’t worry Steve, I feel you pain.
It is simply amazing that the Firearms Blog constituency has degraded to ARFCOM blathering about internal and external ballistics. Guys, it is well know with everything else being equal a bolt gun gets higher velocities(unless using a powder specifically for a semi being used in both semi and bolt) will be higher in a bolt. Bolts do have the advantage to velocity which in turn increases range. Accuracy is also higher in bolts but with the standard for most military DMR and “sniper” rifles is about 1 MOA which is EASILY achieved in a well kept .308/762×51 ar-10 platform rifle.
Battlefield conditions let alone the select ammo are not conducive to accuracy as it is but I see these weapons fairing well when in the correct hands. There are a few videos on youtube of Marine scout/snipers using a m110 of some sort and making it look easy taking out hostiles at 750+ meters.
Those arguing against 5.56 have no grounds to question its usefulness as it has been working well and if they want to be the guy carrying a much heavier gun with much heavier ammo for kilometers on end, well you do it a third as much as the average Marine and figure out how much more tiring that is. 5.56 is for closer in work and generally it works within the range that the average Marine can accurately put rounds on target. Thats why we have Designated marksman with these 7.62 guns, so they can reach out and touch someone with the MAN behind the trigger. A gun doesn’t supplement training and skill, it only enhances it and not everyone is a sniper.
Brad, I have to agree with you. For a combat setting, a semi-automatic rifle like the LMT 308 that gets 1 MOA accuracy is more than adequate enough for extended range duties.
In my experience, the highly desired 5.56mm rounds were the Mk 262 Mod 0 and Mod 1. These 77 grain babies are substantially more effective and accurate than the M855 62 gain bullet, increasing the effective range of a 5.56mm weapon easily to 500 meters (I believe the optimal range with the M855 green tip is 250-300 meters). For what it was designed to do (close quarters combat), the 5.56mm does the job adequately. Yes there are better cartridges, but it is more than adequate as a cartridge (i cannot say the same for the M855, which is a subject of its own).
The 62 grain round is adequately accurate to 500 yards, the new 77 grain is supposed to be accurate to 770 yards. I like the 5.56 in most situations, I’ve used everything from the M16A4 to the Mk12 SPR at 500 yards, and it will get the job done. But using the M110 or M39, I feel the heavier bullet is more likely to do its job, and do it better. I have confidence in the 5.56, I prefer the solid insurance of the 7.62.
Brad, nice post. However, there is not any range advantage for the bolt guns.
W, the 5.56 was not designed for CQB.
18D, the 5.56mm was adopted by the US military when it was determined that the 7.62 NATO was too powerful for assault rifles, as it produced heavy recoil (which could not be controlled in automatic fire) and its ammunition weighed too much. There was no use in fielding a 1,000 meter cartridge when the highest engagement range a majority of time was up to 300 meters (less in the jungle, when the US was using the M14 in Vietnam). It was indeed designed for close quarters combat, being a derivative of the .222 varmint cartridge.
Your explanation is correct. I’m just saying the 5.56 was designed specifically for CQB.
Kind of ironic that we (NZ) threw away 7.62 semi autos (FALs) 25 years ago to reintroduce them now. I know the FALs were never precision weapons but as the man says the AR10s are not sniper rifles either.
What is a sniper rifle? Last time I checked a sniper rifle was a Sniper’s rifle. A sniper chooses a rifle based on his mission. An ergonomic, lightweight, semi-auto 7.62 gun makes a perfect mid range sniper gun.
The .308 MWS is a sniper rifle capable of outstanding accuracy. I would put it up against any bolt gun of the same caliber in a modern combat setting!
Jeff,
At the time, the SLRs were worn out and in any event, the world was changing over to 5.56 mm. Nobody was about to authorise (and more importantly pay for) a depot-level rebuild of the SLRs just to put them in storage. All but a handful were disposed-of. So using the old SLRs was never a starter. Even if we had kept them around, adding a scope to a 50 year old rifle just wasn’t going to produce the results we wanted. As an example, an SLR with a scope mounted was tried as a proof-of-concept demonstrator, and it was a dismal failure. Our guys are rountinely getting first-round hits on Figure 11s at 1,000 metres with the LMT 308MWS.
I spoke to the LMT people at Milipol last week, where they had an L129A1 on the stand.
The two key differences between the UK and NZ versions are:
1. The UK gun has a 16 inch barrel, the NZ one 20 inches.
2. The UK gun is semi-auto only, the NZ gun has selective fire.
The NZ Army opted for selective fire because they thought it might in some circumstances be useful to be able to send a burst of fire down-range.
The full auto fire is an interesting decision. The only real disadvantage I see to having the option of full auto would be the possibility of a worse trigger, but that probably isn’t the case.
Is it totally same as what we can buy from civ market?
BTW, it IS NOT “Lewis machine and tactical.”
it is “Lewis Machine and TOOL”
might want to correct your post. the guy even says the correct name in the video
Thanks, that was a typo.
This does bid the question…………of what calibre for our standard military round.. I mean really 5.56(223) sure its a great fun little round and one that ive used to destroy many a magpie with at 200m+ but it doesnt have the penetration ability of 7.62×39 or 7.62×51. bigger bullet,bigger mass,heavier bullet at slightly lower velocity=greater penetration and more energy.
theres all sorts to throw into the debate of ammunition weight etc…. but for energy at extended ranges something thats around 100gr or bigger doing no more than 3000fps is about perfect. The yanks are finding in the Afghan highlands that 5.56 is adversley effected at range due to its small size and low BC of around(based on hornady 75gr BTHP’s as i couldnt find anywhere else with BC’s on the 62gr loads.) .395 BC, compare that to its bigger brother the 7.62×51(308) with .450 (hornady 168gr BTHP match load).
One way to go would be 6.8SPC,having .400BC with a 120gr load.with energy in between 7.62×51(308) and x39 respectively. similar overall case length to the 5.56 would make conversion a breeze.and recoil in between 5.56 and 7.62×39 you’ve got a sure winner.
I must admit though in all honesty that choosing an existing round whether it be a hunting or military might not be such a bad idea,243win could be one option being the baby brother of the 7.62×51(308)
Most DMRs and sniper have gone to AR-10 platforms since they are not piston driven and rely on better accuracy. Same reason the US Army went with the M-110.
I would expect a firearms blog to know the difference between .308 and 7.62.
Ooooook, what is that supposed to mean?
No real ballistic deference from .308 Win and 7.62 NATO. 5.56mm/.223 is the only one with a small ballistic difference in cartridges.
There is quite a bit of difference between the two Lance.
http://www.lmtstore.com/complete-weapon-systems-firearms-guns/308-modular-weapon-system.html
The rifle is called the “308 modular weapon system”, not the “7.62x51mm modular weapon system”. Thefirearmblog was correct in naming it as such.
Yes, that I why I used the terminology I did.
The NRA and SAAMI both compare 7.62 NATO ball M-80 as the same as 150gr .308 loads used by commercial rifle users.
They are not the same at all. Different chambers, different pressures, different cases.
Depends on nationality many standard US loads are the same you can shoot 7.62mm NATO out of a .308 caliber rifle no problem. 5.56mm dose have a difference and is not recommended to shoot 5.56mm ammo in a .223 rifle.
It’s not a big difference. You can fire 7.62mm out of a .308 rifle, and vice versa.
the 7.62 NATO is mostly loaded (though not always) with the maximum pressure at 80,000 +/- PSI. Commercial SAAMI specification for 308 Winchester is 62,000 lbs.
The worst case scenario? loading 308 in many NATO-style battle rifles (FAL or G3) can sometimes result in under pressure on the action, meaning it will not cycle completely. Rifles chambered specifically for 308 Winchester will experience increased wear, but can other wise fire the same ammunition. I had a G3-style rifle (a copy from springfield) that will malfunction with many civilian 308 winchester loads.
80,000 psi? WTF! Absolutely not! Come on people, you would think by now we would know the difference between 7.62 NATO and .308 win.
Max pressure for .308 is around 62,000 psi, while the 7.62 NATO max pressure is 50,000 psi. Most manufactures won’t go over 57,000 psi for .308 win loads, but some will go higher, so be aware! The cases are dimensionaly the same, but the 7.62 cartridge has a thicker base. The reason the 7.62 has a thicker base, is because there is NO NATO spec chamber. So the 7.62 has to be able to withstand the variances in headspace in military 7.62 rifles.
There is a lot more issues than just cycling W! .308 win should not be fired in 7.62 NATO chambers because of a possibility of case rupture! I’d say there is a lot more difference in the two than what some would lead you to believe. If you don’t know the difference, then don’t put out bad information, someone could get hurt!
18D, the 7.62 NATO cartridge is, according to SAAMI, safe enough to fire commercial 308 winchester.When you are talking about ruptured cases with firing 7.62 in 308 chambers, you are failing to mention the headspace of the individual rifle (it can be generally safe, with the possible risk being from G3/CETME rifles). The “80,000″ is a typo. NATO 7.62 is typically 50,000 PSI give or take.
There are differences in headspace between manufacturers of 7.62 battle rifles, though the 7.62 NATO uses thicker brass (which is why i shoot mil surplus only). This information is from SAAMI so don’t get bent out of shape over it. Research the information for yourself before criticizing mine. My point is that NATO standard for 7.62 really wasn’t a standard.
What the hell are you talking about? I should research the subject? I just told you the facts! Your entire second paragraph is just repeating what I said!
Your other info is Incorrect, and not what I said. I said it is dangerous to fire .308 win in 7.62 NATO chambers because there are large variances in 7.62 chambers! I also said that there is no actual 7.62 NATO spec chamber!
Trying to, or actually repeating my own comment back to me is kinda useless. Don’t you think?
well at least im not the one getting bent out of shape because of misunderstandings in what i posted (and a typo). You didn’t mention headspace of 7.62 NATO rifles, which i have gratuitously mentioned. The headspace on individual rifles is why the rounds are sometimes incompatible, which is why it is important to check a individual rifle’s headspace instead of getting bent out of shape over the ammunition. Generally, in modern rifles or a vast majority of mil-spec ones, 308 winchester works in 7.62 rifles, though I wouldn’t fire it in a G3-action rifle or a vintage mil-surplus one re-chambered for 7.62 because of the propensity for headspaces to be different, thus it will not cycle correctly or, in many cases, will not chamber at all. Yes, there is a difference between the two, though the question if they’re compatible or not is ambiguous to many to say the least.
Seriously? Are you even reading the comments I posted, or just responding with misinformation?
Once again you repeat my own words. I said that the reason .308 is a problem in 7.62 chambers is because of wide variances in headspace. Your idea that there will be function issues is wrong. The .308 should have no problem chambering or cycling In 7.62 guns that chamber and cycle 7.62 properly. The two are identical on the outside with all things being equal. The danger is that there is a possibility of case rupture when firing .308 in 7.62 NATO chambers.
Quit repeating my comments and then saying that you said the same thing all along.
18D, stop overexaggerating. Nobody is repeating your posts and overestimating the issue with the cartridge differences in modern battle rifles. From my experience, the primary issue with 7.62 mil surplus guns exploding is from ammunition acquired from gunshows that uses military brass, but is reloaded incorrectly.
“I said that the reason .308 is a problem in 7.62 chambers is because of wide variances in headspace.”
and i never disagreed with that…so i don’t know why you think i am.
“Your idea that there will be function issues is wrong. The .308 should have no problem chambering or cycling In 7.62 guns that chamber and cycle 7.62 properly.”
Actually, no I am not wrong. The best example is the CETME/G3 or copy. Numerous users of G3′s have had issues with thinner case 308 commercial ammunition and the more violent action of those firearm designs ripping up the brass…making it unusable for reloading. For other firearms, like the FAL, M1A or SCAR 17, commercial 308 has no issues operating. But of course, I brought up the CETME/G3 previously.
“The two are identical on the outside with all things being equal. The danger is that there is a possibility of case rupture when firing .308 in 7.62 NATO chambers.”
Well, given the facts, how can you say they (the cartridges) are equal? they are not. That is a moot point however with modern battle rifles (which generally say 7.62/308). You mentioned the danger is because of variances in NATO chambers and I said it is the individual rifle that needs the headspace checked. It seems like you are deliberatley misstepping around what i have to say. It doesn’t matter anyways. My point is that 7.62 battle rifles (modern) will generally function with commercial ammunition. If you have a older bolt-action rifle re-chambered for 7.62 or G3 copy, then care should be taken. I have never heard of commercial ammunition causing problems in modern battle rifles chambered for 7.62. Vintage bolt-action rifles re-chambered, however, have the possibility of causing problems (understandibly so). Im not discussing this anymore.
You are impossible. I understand that you’re not comprehending the sentences, but I think you are just making things up now!
When I mentioned the headspace in my comment, you had never said anything about it before that. Then you mention it in your comment and said that I never said anything about it, and that you were the one that mentioned it first. Tell me that’s not copying what I said! Come on man!
The G3? Seriously? The problems with the G3 go beyond the difference between the two cartridges. It’s the fluting in the extractor that causes the issues there. Besides, bringing that up just proves the point that I’ve been making the whole time anyway.
How can I say they are equal? Have you gone mad? Why in the hell would I say that. I said they were the same dimensions on the outside.
I never “misstepped” around your comments, I answered them directly. Everytime you replied, you just repeated my own comments back to me. THAT’S FACT! Anyone who reads that thread will say the same thing. I put my house on it! The fact is that everything I said was cold hard truth. Bad information is one thing. Bad information that could be potentially dangerous is another thing. I got worked up because you put out the latter. Why would we want people to go out and damage their guns, sacrifice reliability, or worse hurt themselves? I understand that you have your pride, but put that aside and stop trying to give people the idea that what I said wasn’t true! Some of the people that read these don’t know the difference.
“You are impossible. I understand that you’re not comprehending the sentences, but I think you are just making things up now! “
save the personal attacks.
“When I mentioned the headspace in my comment, you had never said anything about it before that.”
you said,”The reason the 7.62 has a thicker base, is because there is NO NATO spec chamber. So the 7.62 has to be able to withstand the variances in headspace in military 7.62 rifles.”
I said the headspace depends on the INDIVIDUAL rifle. My second post. You were referring to the difference in the cartridge and I responded that the headspace of individual rifles should be taken into consideration over the differences in the cartridges. Now that is out of the way…
” Then you mention it in your comment and said that I never said anything about it, and that you were the one that mentioned it first. Tell me that’s not copying what I said! Come on man! “
Again refer to previous comment.
“The G3? Seriously? The problems with the G3 go beyond the difference between the two cartridges. It’s the fluting in the extractor that causes the issues there. Besides, bringing that up just proves the point that I’ve been making the whole time anyway.”
I mentioned the G3 is one of the unique rifles that are affected when you use 308 vs 7.62 ammunition. I don’t understand why you are being a dead horse anyways.
“How can I say they are equal? Have you gone mad? Why in the hell would I say that. I said they were the same dimensions on the outside.”
Referring back to what you said, “The two are identical on the outside with all things being equal.”
You said it. Not me.
“I never “misstepped” around your comments, I answered them directly.
Everytime you replied, you just repeated my own comments back to me. THAT’S FACT! Anyone who reads that thread will say the same thing. I put my house on it!”
Well good for you. The main point im making is that a overwhelming majority of rifles will be unaffected by using commercial 308 ammunition. Thats it. I never said all of your information is wrong, I am saying that you seem to be deliberately intending to disagree with me, even though the facts i have provided with 308 and 7.62 coincide with yours.
“The fact is that everything I said was cold hard truth. Bad information is one thing. Bad information that could be potentially dangerous is another thing. I got worked up because you put out the latter.”
I get worked up when people don’t look at things objectively and overexaggerate things when the facts state otherwise. Then they attempt to discredit and criticize somebody that doesn’t play into the emotional argument BS.
“Why would we want people to go out and damage their guns, sacrifice reliability, or worse hurt themselves? I understand that you have your pride, but put that aside and stop trying to give people the idea that what I said wasn’t true! Some of the people that read these don’t”
Here’s a answer to that post: stop overexaggerating and blowing things out of proportion.
That thing is so sick! Maybe i can fire one one of these days?
Should have bought a SCAR H or HK417 (like Australian special forces, who they have a much closer military relationship to than Britain) Both can be optimized for the accuracy of the LMT.
The range accuracy that the LMT .308 offers is only a small part of the DMR role. Weight, ruggedness, reliability, maintenance, ergonomics, versatility and so on are just as important. I think they made the wrong choice here.
The SCAR H isn’t set up to be a precision rifle, and the HK417 is a piston gun, which they probably didn’t want, and for good reason.
Seriously? LMT makes some of the most reliable, durable, and accurate guns in the world. They ate battle proven, and a great choice!
The Aussies have HK417 as the DMR but KAC SR-25s for sniping duties.
Alex, you are right that they both can have comparable accuracy to a AR10 platform, though I’m not exactly why the LMT AR10 was chosen because it is not that much more accurate and especially not more reliable than any of those two weapons. Needless to say, I agree with the selection simply because I admire LMT for producing quality products.
It might have been something down to cost and good timing. The sniper version of the SCAR H isn’t ready, and no doubt it would have cost alot more. The AR-10 based LMT though, offers no surprises as the SR-25 is already being used. Additionally if New Zealand changes it’s mind, they can easily re-sell it.
Most military’s including ours want DI weapons since they have less moving parts and more accurate than piston gun like the 417 and Mk20. They come in stock with free floating barrels and modular buttstocks. Many are alot cheaper than most other semiauto sniper rifles ion the market. Even the USMC is supplementing M-40A3s with M-110s now.
What ate you talking about? The FN SCAR SSR is definently ready.
Most NATO army snipers went to the AR-10 platform not only due to its accuracy but also it shares parts with M-4s and M-16s and cuts costs or repair and maintenance down Most piston guns don’t gave as much accuracy as a DI gun due to more moving parts and gas movements when shooting.
Factually, DI guns are not necessarily more accurate, that is a generalization that was true 20 years ago, but not now. I don’t know how many times i have to repeat this. It is factually incorrect and has been refuted many times.
The AR10 derivatives don’t have parts commonality with the AR15 and they don’t even have commonality with other AR10 models. Different manufacturers use different bolts, carrier groups, headspace, buffer/buffer springs, and gas tubes. The AR10 was never standardized in any military, thus it wasn’t mass produced with a common template, unlike the AR15.
And 18, the SCAR SSR wasn’t ready when the US and other countries adopted the AR10 derivatives. It isn’t even ready now, with variants being fielded by SOCOM undergoing testing.
Most SOCOM units passed on the Mark 20 in favor of the M-110 mostly due to cost and being more ergonomically.
@W- Not sure where you’re getting info at, but the SCAR SSR is ready. The MK20 has been In the field for quite some time now, and has been quite a hit with certain units.
“The Full-Rate Production Decision Review by the Milestone Decision Authority occurred on October 28, 2010. The MK 16, MK 17, and MK 13 weapons received Full-Rate Production approval in July of this year and fielding of the MK17 and MK13 variants to SOF operational units is underway. The MK 20 is expected to start being fielded in mid -May, 2011.”
And that was from the FN Herstal corporate site. The M110 from knights armament won the contract in 2005, with the first unit receiving them in 2008. So yes, factually, it wasn’t ready yet when the M110 was officially adopted. The Mk 20 has only been fielded officially for four months roughly…
Forgive me, sometimes I assume that people know who Iam.
Iam WELL aware of how the contract went, I worked with that solicitation closely. When I said that the SSR is ready, I meant right now. Your comments suggested that you were saying the opposite. Sorry if I took It the wrong way. You are very correct in saying the SSR variant was not available during the M110 trials.
Since we’re on the subject. I believe that had the SSR been available at that time, it would have been chosen. I’ve put a few rounds through the MK20 and I have to say its amazingly accurate for a semi-auto. It was also very reliable. It’s unfortunate that the SSR won’t see much use, at least not at the moment. It truly is one of the best sniper rifles on the market!
well, 18, I also hope the SSR will be adopted and that will be beneficial for socom, as it has a high part commonality with the SCAR 17. Yes, the SCAR 17 wasn’t designed as a sniper rifle, but rather as a updated battle rifle/DMR when utilizing the longer barrel. In its defense, the M14 wasn’t designed as a sniper rifle either, it is a designated marksman rifle.
According to Wiki, New Zealand’s active military is less than 12,000 troops. This makes them one of the few ‘First World’ countries whose entire military would be wiped out in an all-out gun fight with the NYPD.
But imagine how long it would take for the NYPD to make sure they were unarmed, shoot them and then place all those rifles in their hands after the fact? (I’m joking BTW, everyone chill the hell out).
I think that you’re forgetting the millions of sheep who’d be very upset with the NYPD. NYPD might be able to wipe out the NZ military, but they don’t stand a chance against the hoards of angry sheep.
Doubtful, New Zealanders are pretty tough.
I’m just going to say, if anyone knows about sheep, it’s the Kiwis.
For the most part, the NYPD is very competent as far as cops go, New Zealanders and Aussies are pretty tough. Have you seen them play rugby? I’d even go out and say rugby is manlier than (gridiron) football.
Er, billiards is more manly than gridiron. Do you see pussies putting on helmets and padding for billiards?
a good choice since parts replacement is relatively simple, they can exchange equipment and expertise with the UK, and not last but not least Lewis Machine & Tool produces outstanding rifles.
I was under the impression that “AR-10″ is a registered trademark of ArmaLite and that LMT refers to these AR pattern weapons as the 308MWS (Modular Weapon System). Only ArmaLite is allowed to market a rifle as an “AR-10″.
/pedantry
1200 yds is practical for harrassment or if the ratio of ammunition supply to targets is favourably AND little payback to be feared.
I do submit that in my opinion fires at such distances are usually disadvantageous. You give away your presence and force them to become more careful. It’s usually better to leave them careless and learn from observing them.
That’s 1200 yards with accuracy! A 7.62 gun will still be accurate and pretty effective out to 1200 yards with a 20 in barrel.
It looks like the New Zealanders are using 20″ barrels instead of the 16″ barrel the British use. I honestly don’t understand the need for a 20″ barrel on a DMR/SASS rifle. They’re more for target at 600m or closer, beyond that it’s bolt gun territory.
A 20 in. barrel 7.62 gun will run out to 1200 yds with ease. A bolt gun does not give you anymore range with the same length barrel.
Side note: Surprisingly a bolt action gun will probably give you more range, or, more importantly, will give you a flatter trajectory.
If you have a look at the H&K 417/ MR308/whatever, you’ll see that the gas pressure used for cycling the action does have an effect, as the MR308 loses about 150fps compared to a bolt action rifle with the same barrel length and the same ammunition.
Now LMT builds a direct gas-impingement system, not a piston-driven one, and H&K did build their gun with an impressive safety margin, but the effect is always there on a semi – and every tiny little effect is noticeable past 800 yards
Yeah, but it gives you twice the accuracy. KAC is already working on a follow on carbine variant to the M110 because the extra barrel length doean’t offer much in the way of practical benefit at the ranges that the weapons are being utilized at.
That’s not correct Tierlieb. A semi auto is going to have a higher velocity than a bolt gun with the same ammo and same barrel length. The difference is very little, but the semi-auto, not the bolt gun, shoots faster.
@18D – How is that possible? I was always under the impression that it’s the escaping gas following the path of least resistance that correlates with bullet velocity.
Logically, a tightly sealed bolt action pushing all of the gas down the barrel should result in a higher velocity. There are other variables such as relative spacing in the respective chambers, but comparing apples to apples, wouldn’t the bolt gun come out on top?
Please let me know if I’m missing something.
spudgun, thats not true, so you needn’t be concerned with it. Comparing the M24 and M110, 7.62mm weapons, the M24 has a sliver of faster muzzle velocity. Bolt-action rifles are extremely accurate, not surprising, with a bolt-action (in 300 WSM) holding the 2010 world record (cited on night force’s website). For military purposes (engagement ranges up to 1,200 meters), semi-automatic sniper rifles perform well, if not superior to bolt-actions for engaging multiple targets.
I’m pretty sure the velocity difference between bolt and semi guns is negligible, but I’d have to give it to the bolt gun if I had to choose. I cannot think of any mechanism whereby a bolt gun would lose velocity or any way for a semi to increase velocity. Any difference between M110 and M24 likely has something to do with the chamber, throat, or barrel being slightly different dimensions or even muzzle devices far more than their operating method.
Now revolvers and semi pistols is a different story.
Thank you Komrad,Spudgun, and Tierlieb! Posting exactly opposite info is never my intention, but my hand was slightly forced to do so. Thank you for proving my buddy wrong.
BTW, the accuracy difference between semi-auto and bolt guns is so minute that it wouldn’t have any range advantage at all. Thanks guys!
At ranges up to 1,200 meters, given modern technologies, the difference between bolt guns and semi-autos is minimal. Similar to the difference between gas piston and direct impingement guns at those distances. At extreme distance, like 2,500 meters, bolt-action guns demonstrate their superior accuracy, due to the decreased likelihood of throwing the bullet off with the repeating action. There is a reason why world records are set with bolt action rifles. For combat, i would rather have a semi-auto.
I wonder if adding the complexity of an adjustable regulator with a cut off position to the gas system would be worth it, for both maximum range and silent operation.
You could cold barrel zero with the regulator closed and make it your SOP to shoot with the regulator closed for max range, minimal noise and flatter trajectory.
In an emergency, you pop the regulator open and select full auto when the targets are much closer and subtly is a non-issue.
There isn’t a significant difference between bolt and semi-automatic in terms of accuracy, but I personally prefer using the M40 over the M110, partially because I am more confident that a solid bolt-action won’t fail me, and partially because (call me weird) I enjoy working the bolt.
I’m sure there are negligible differences in velocity between the two actions, but it’s negligible. It really comes down to the situation and preference.
At under 1,000 meters, action really doesn’t make a difference, but at over 2,000 meters, when little factors come into play, I’m sure the simplicity and precision of the bolt action makes the tiny difference that counts. At any rate, luck plays a huge part at that range, and a Ranger did make a 2,300m (2,515 yards for us ‘Muricans) shot with a semi-automatic Barrett.
exactly, doe. Just remember the world record was set with a bolt-action rifle and the longest combat shot was made by a bolt-action 338 by accuracy international (i am a proud owner i digress). In defense of repeating weapons, the record was held by the longest time by the M2 with a modified scope and mount
Both records by a canadian and a brit, no wonder they say americans can’t shoot (but we get more practice dammit 
@W
Americans can’t shoot? That shot with an M2 and a scope was made by none other than the legendary U.S. Marine, Carlos Hathcock! Give him a fancy .338 rifle, and he could’ve made a better shot easily. The third record shot is held by a Ranger with a Barrett! A Marine Staff Sergeant (although that could describe me, admittedly it doesn’t) using a M82 with Raufoss rounds took one three militants(?) from
a mile behind a brick wall, with one shot. In Iraq, Marines were being investigated for getting too many headshots with their M16s. Turns out those shots were at 500 yards, just like in boot camp.
Americans can shoot, and I’m looking towards one day either owning my own .50 BMG or .338.
P.S. If a semi-automatic .50 BMG can be made, is there a semi-automatic .338?
@ John Doe
Semi-automatic .338 Lapua Magnum rifles:
http://www.onlylongrange.com/badnews.asp
http://www.tactical-life.com/online/products/bushmaster-ba338/
haha, well, historically, it is proven that americans can shoot, but is a british-derived stereotype that i couldn’t help but exploit
and yes, i would love to shoot a 338 Noreen one of these days. thats on my to do list.