D
Deleted member 103481
Guest
Whats the coal of mil spec 300win and what bullet weight does it usually run?
F.y.i. us army orders $50 million barrett mrads in 300 prc
- Thread starter Danehunter
- Start date
Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
$50 Million here... $100 Million there... That's a lot of money just to test something, when our government is already hemorrhaging money from every orifice, with a massive deficit. They couldn't stick with what they already had been using all this time? Wasn't it working fine? Maybe I'm looking at it from a non-bureaucratic point of view, but if it ain't broke, why spend $100's of millions to fix it? That's essentially just spending money for the hell of it...
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
As of the final 2009 testing variation... MK 248 MOD 1 ammo uses a 220 Sierra MatchKing, H1000 powder, Fed 215M primer, and has a 3.500" COAL. And reached the specified 2,850 FPS MV.
The mentality "if it ain't, don't fix " stagnates progress. There is always a cost associated with it.
Requirements change and so as solutions. Unless you know the "actual " requirements, it is purely speculative.
Sometimes contracting a function that is not inherently governmental is more cost effective.
therifleman556
Well-Known Member
The people making these decisions are no different than an employee in any private sector job. What I mean by that is they are beholden to their superiors and no one else. If they want something new and the higher ups approve it, game on. I'm sure it happens in every department in the government. Change has to start at the top; good luck with that one.
It would be like me asking for a $10,000 automated parts washer. Even if my employer is hemorrhaging money and my old one works fine, I'm not going to turn it down.
I'm (mostly) ok with the military getting whatever they think they need. Far be it for me to decide what it is. I'd rather we stopped spending BILLIONS on people crossing our borders illegally who are very likely to vote for more waste while paying nothing in.
It would be like me asking for a $10,000 automated parts washer. Even if my employer is hemorrhaging money and my old one works fine, I'm not going to turn it down.
I'm (mostly) ok with the military getting whatever they think they need. Far be it for me to decide what it is. I'd rather we stopped spending BILLIONS on people crossing our borders illegally who are very likely to vote for more waste while paying nothing in.
Exactly ... well said.
MudRunner2005
Well-Known Member
Won't get an argument from me on that one... I wish we'd cutoff the entire welfare system, special interest group funding of racist snakepits like the SPLC & the ADL, funding every country other than our own, paying out foreign aid to craphole countries and getting nothing in return, funding Israel's SECOND wall but not our own first wall (did you know that over 88 members of congress have dual-citizenship with Israel? Makes you wonder...), etc..., etc...
xsn10s
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2016
- Messages
- 7,626
If you look through the Army's choices on cartridges and weapons you'll see the obvious mistakes made. I'm sure you're aware of them.
the hunter
Well-Known Member
The wind of change blows straight, into the face of time.
Wild Monkey
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2017
- Messages
- 426
I hate the thought of overpriced Contracts. Yet I'd love have had 300 PRC Full Auto in my Fire Team. The Weight of the SAW was manageable, I hope this new Gun is no more heavy. Welcome the Modern Newton into Service and Celebrate History.
My Precision AR10 in 308 is as heavy as any of my big 30s or 338 bolts. And if I put a 6.5 CM upper on it its still the same weight. Using change barrels on the MRad is not benefiting anyone in the weight category. So why do this?
Another ammo to supply is just stupid. So what, the sniper carries both, 300PRC and also 338L barrels and ammo into the field just in case its a really really long shot?
From my perspective the problem with military procurement is political.
*** would you have 223, 6.8, 308, 300 wm, 300PRC and 338 Lapua when the 308 in AR config and a 338 Lapua in bolt config pretty much covers all the bases? Jeezus. And regardless of where you are you will find ammo for either of those. It's not like some teams do not already shoot the 338 Lapua. ***? It's not like a 300PRC MRad is half the weight. It's the same gun as the 338L Mrad. If the purpose of the whole MRad thing is versatility then the 338L and 300PRC are the same weight. Adding another ammo, tactical and ballistic considerations into already stressful scenarios it typical mil idiocy. I can't say what the limits of the PRC might be in every situation, but I know for certainty that anything a 300WM or 300PRC can do, a 338 Lapua can do better. PERIOD. Particularly if you're using the same platform. Somebody owns stock in Hornady or Barret.
Nuts.
Another ammo to supply is just stupid. So what, the sniper carries both, 300PRC and also 338L barrels and ammo into the field just in case its a really really long shot?
From my perspective the problem with military procurement is political.
*** would you have 223, 6.8, 308, 300 wm, 300PRC and 338 Lapua when the 308 in AR config and a 338 Lapua in bolt config pretty much covers all the bases? Jeezus. And regardless of where you are you will find ammo for either of those. It's not like some teams do not already shoot the 338 Lapua. ***? It's not like a 300PRC MRad is half the weight. It's the same gun as the 338L Mrad. If the purpose of the whole MRad thing is versatility then the 338L and 300PRC are the same weight. Adding another ammo, tactical and ballistic considerations into already stressful scenarios it typical mil idiocy. I can't say what the limits of the PRC might be in every situation, but I know for certainty that anything a 300WM or 300PRC can do, a 338 Lapua can do better. PERIOD. Particularly if you're using the same platform. Somebody owns stock in Hornady or Barret.
Nuts.
Having worked with the MTU, USA Soldier Systems program office and The MARCOSYSCOM Rifle Squad Program Office, I can say that these decisions are not always made by the guys who know better. Often in the acquisition process, the guys doing the testing and evaluation give their recommendations and are promptly ignored by the Logistics side of the equation. Sure, the $50 mil covers initial acquisition, fielding, support equipment and parts and armorers kits and such. But the total cost is way north of there when you consider that Hornady did not make changes to tooling and production equipment to not plan on charging those costs back eventually, be it initial ammo supply or follow on contracts. Its a business, it makes no sense a lot of times, but he who has the best lobbyist wins the golden egg. Courtesy of the same folks that brought you the Gen 1 Bradley Fighting Vehicle!
So,
Everyone here knows the M1 was originally designed for 6.5 right?
The reason that it ended up 30 cal is because of old ammo left over from WWI.
Just pointing out the obvious that many here seem to miss.
Repeating rifles existed before and during the civil war but saw very limited use.
detachable Box magazine technology existed before WWII, but the entire war was fought without.
So, there are a million obvious and "perfect" solutions to any nearly every issue.
Yet only NASA/air force gets to spend millions on a single tool or toilet seat.
Balance of cost, availability, scale, weight, budget, politics (including the reinforcing cycle of use, demand, growing supplier response to that demand= greater availability and hence demand for obvious use) enter into every other decision.
The 30 PRC is great round. It has a niche and a purpose.
Are there dozens and dozens of competing options? Sure.
How many rounds can one man carry of 338? or 30 PRC? of 6.5? of 223?
despite our advances in all technology...one thing has not changed in several thousand years:
The weight of KIT one soldier can carry and be effective.
(Again, you think I am joking...watch the films of WWI soldiers being mowed down coming out of the trenches...they look like they are barely making any effort to evade...because they are loaded down with 80# of full kit.)
Anyway....long story short.
Until every soldier has a robot donkey/dog hauling his kit....the weight of Ammo will continue to be a major consideration.
The army/marines will not have a squad member carry 30 cal when 223 will do and they will not carry 338 or 50 cal when 30 PRC will do.
Everyone here knows the M1 was originally designed for 6.5 right?
The reason that it ended up 30 cal is because of old ammo left over from WWI.
Just pointing out the obvious that many here seem to miss.
Repeating rifles existed before and during the civil war but saw very limited use.
detachable Box magazine technology existed before WWII, but the entire war was fought without.
So, there are a million obvious and "perfect" solutions to any nearly every issue.
Yet only NASA/air force gets to spend millions on a single tool or toilet seat.
Balance of cost, availability, scale, weight, budget, politics (including the reinforcing cycle of use, demand, growing supplier response to that demand= greater availability and hence demand for obvious use) enter into every other decision.
The 30 PRC is great round. It has a niche and a purpose.
Are there dozens and dozens of competing options? Sure.
How many rounds can one man carry of 338? or 30 PRC? of 6.5? of 223?
despite our advances in all technology...one thing has not changed in several thousand years:
The weight of KIT one soldier can carry and be effective.
(Again, you think I am joking...watch the films of WWI soldiers being mowed down coming out of the trenches...they look like they are barely making any effort to evade...because they are loaded down with 80# of full kit.)
Anyway....long story short.
Until every soldier has a robot donkey/dog hauling his kit....the weight of Ammo will continue to be a major consideration.
The army/marines will not have a squad member carry 30 cal when 223 will do and they will not carry 338 or 50 cal when 30 PRC will do.
