USSOCOM To Buy M110K1 Upper Receivers In 6.5CM From KAC

[HCM]

http://soldiersystems.net/2019/10/29/ussocom-to-buy-m110k1-upper-receivers-in-6-5cm-from-knights-armament-co/

USSOCOM To Buy M110K1 Upper Receivers In 6.5CM From Knight’s Armament Co


According to a pre-solicitation notice published yesterday by Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Crane, Knights Armament Company has offered to the Government an improved, capability upgrade to the upper receiver assembly for the M110K1 Semi-Automatic Sniper System (SASS). The new upper receiver is 6.5mm Creedmoor (versus 7.62mm, CLIN 0001 on current contract) and provides longer distance shots and increased range.

[HCM]

One of these would go nicely on an LMT lower...

[STI]

If anyone figures out the barrel length I’m curious

[Gray222]

Congrats to knights, I know they were trying to get this.

[jetfire]

/cries

Meanwhile the USAF can't even get our M110 program stood up correctly in 7.62.

[Hambo]

/cries

Meanwhile the USAF can't even get our M110 program stood up correctly in 7.62.

Space Force will get it sorted out for you.

[Poconnor]

The Air Force is waiting for the phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

[ranger]

/cries

Meanwhile the USAF can't even get our M110 program stood up correctly in 7.62.

Just use your deployment credit cards like they do for all the other cool gear. ONS.

[ragnar_d]

If anyone figures out the barrel length I’m curious
If they're using the K1 designation, there's a good chance that they're 16". The original K1 conversion kits (https://adsinc.com/product/knights-armament-m110k1-conversion-kit/) were 7.62 16" uppers with a collapsible stock kit.

[Joe in PNG]

The Air Force is waiting for the phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

Or M41A Pulse Rifles.

[Super77]

I got to shoot one of these earlier this year, it was very impressive. I think KAC is the leader in large frame ARs.

[jetfire]

Just use your deployment credit cards like they do for all the other cool gear. ONS.

I wish. Outside of AFSOC, which sort of gets to do whatever they want, our weapons procurement process can be kind of rough sometimes. A lot of the time it's "well just get whatever the Army has" which is how we ended up with the M18 pistol being fielded force wide.

[Old Man Winter]

If anyone figures out the barrel length I’m curious

This contract is for 16" uppers. I suspect there will also be 14.5" variants purchased with unit funds.

[RAM Engineer]

This contract is for 16" uppers. I suspect there will also be 14.5" variants purchased with unit funds.

I'm not sure I see the point to a 14.5" 6.5 Creedmoor barrel. Truthfully, I'm not sure I see the point of a 16" either.

[HCM]

I wish. Outside of AFSOC, which sort of gets to do whatever they want, our weapons procurement process can be kind of rough sometimes. A lot of the time it's "well just get whatever the Army has" which is how we ended up with the M18 pistol being fielded force wide.

Not just an AF thing. DOD joint programs are mandatory for everyone outside SOCOM. Same with Ammo. USMC wanted brown tip but they were forced to go with M855A1.

[Crews]

I'm not sure I see the point to a 14.5" 6.5 Creedmoor barrel. Truthfully, I'm not sure I see the point of a 16" either.

16” Creedmoor is more of a hammer than one would expect out at distance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ranger]

I'm not sure I see the point to a 14.5" 6.5 Creedmoor barrel. Truthfully, I'm not sure I see the point of a 16" either.

I assume it is to keep down overall length while using a suppressor. I saw an article where a tester cut a 6.5CM barrel and measured velocity - it was an interesting article to see velocity vs barrel length and corresponding ballistics impact - shorter barrels were not as bad as one would expect with the high BC projectiles.

[ragnar_d]

I'm not sure I see the point to a 14.5" 6.5 Creedmoor barrel. Truthfully, I'm not sure I see the point of a 16" either.
6.5mm cartridges out of 16” barrels have been messed around with for a while.

It was either Jack L or Ash Hess who mentioned that they were seeing ballistics equal to or slightly better than 20” 7.62 guns from the 14.5-16” 6.5 Creedmoor SR-25. Add in the benefits of taking 4+ inches, several ounces off the gun, and being a much more compact/maneuverable weapon and I don’t see much for a downside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crews]

High BC 140’s at 2500ish MV..... anyone within 600 yards needs to be plenty scared. 800 is where I always saw mine start to lose a good amount of “useable momentum”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNM1136]

You guys are getting me excited for my suppressed LaRue 18" 6.5 when my governor gets her AWB through the legeislature next year....

(Homer Simpson Stage Whisper/Mrs UNM1136 approved a suppressed AR10 in 6.5 for me and 16" 300 Blackout for each of the kids in the event it passes /Homer Simpson Stage Whisper/)

To say I have mixed feelings is an understatement....actually bordering schizophrenia....:confused:

pat

[Old Man Winter]

I'm not sure I see the point to a 14.5" 6.5 Creedmoor barrel. Truthfully, I'm not sure I see the point of a 16" either.

As others have stated the 6.5 doesn't need a 24"+ tube to be effective. At 16" you still get all the advantages of the 6.5 over 7.62 in a more compact rifle. As I understand it, the 14.5" is a rig that does well at distance and the lighter recoiling 6.5 gets you closer to the speed of a 5.56 gun.

[RAM Engineer]

Thanks for schooling me on short (sub 20") barrel 6.5CM guns guys. Interesting reading. I wonder if LMT will be making shorter 6.5 barrels now.

[RAM Engineer]

Thanks for schooling me on short (sub 20") barrel 6.5CM guns guys. Interesting reading. I wonder if LMT will be making shorter 6.5 barrels now.

According to them: nope. 👎

[Old Man Winter]

According to them: nope. 👎

That's surprising considering they offer four options if you want a 13.5" length 7.62 barrel.

[RAM Engineer]

That's surprising considering they offer four options if you want a 13.5" length 7.62 barrel.

Yep. I wonder the feasibility of cutting down one of their 20” tubes.

Does anyone know what 6.5CM load SOCOM is issuing?

[Old Man Winter]

Does anyone know what 6.5CM load SOCOM is issuing?

Damn few people know at this point and those who do aren't talking. Larue submitted uppers and has made a few comments about the ammo. No prior access, kept under very tight reigns, 140gr Bergers in Norma brass loaded by Black Hills and it was somewhat hot.

[spyderco monkey]

I saw an article where a tester cut a 6.5CM barrel and measured velocity - it was an interesting article to see velocity vs barrel length and corresponding ballistics impact - shorter barrels were not as bad as one would expect with the high BC projectiles.

https://rifleshooter.com/2016/02/6-5-creedmoor-effect-of-barrel-length-on-velocity-cutting-up-a-creedmoor/

https://rifleshooter.com/2019/03/6-5-creedmoor-effects-of-barrel-length-on-velocity-2019/

https://i0.wp.com/rifleshooter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/6.5-Creedmoor-barrel-length-effects-velocity.png?resize=1024%2C637&ssl=1

Military 6.5's may be a little hotter/better optimized for shorter barrels; similar to .308 vs 7.62 loads or .223 vs 5.56.

Per Quickload from my notes:

6.5 Creedmoor, 123gr Lapua, Alliance Reloader 17, @ 62kpsi
10” - 2383fps
16”- 2795fps
20”- 2962fps
24”- 3,086fps

[Redhat]

I wish. Outside of AFSOC, which sort of gets to do whatever they want, our weapons procurement process can be kind of rough sometimes. A lot of the time it's "well just get whatever the Army has" which is how we ended up with the M18 pistol being fielded force wide.

Not quite how it works re "whatever the army has"

[jetfire]

Not quite how it works re "whatever the army has"

Hence the statement "a lot of the time" not "all of the time." Words mean things.

Our small arms aquisition has been comprehensively dicked up for ages, and unfortunately a lot of leadership in the SF Center really is enamored with the idea of us trying to copy everything the Army does, but changing it just slightly enough "because we're the air force" that the end result is a hopeless mess.

Reference the fact that the new SOP for the M18 is to carry a striker fired pistol with stored ignition energy with the safety off.

[JRB]

....Reference the fact that the new SOP for the M18 is to carry a striker fired pistol with stored ignition energy with the safety off.

Holy shit.

[jetfire]

Holy shit.

Oh yeah. The Security Forces center, who decides all this stuff, basically decided that since we carried the M9 with the safety off all these years that we should carry the M18 the same way.

I have reviewed the Center’s decision, and since it’s a stupid ass decision I’m going to ignore it and use the safety.

[TheRoland]

Why holy shit? It's a little goofy for sure but not unsafe. Tons of non-military 320s have no safety at all, and people have been carrying fully-cocked striker pistols with no manual safety for a while; eg. the M&P.

Of course, there was the drop safety thing.

[Odin Bravo One]

Does anyone know what 6.5CM load SOCOM is issuing?

Yup.

[RAM Engineer]

Yup.

Would you be willing to share details?

[Sigfan26]

Yup.

Any good?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRB]

Why holy shit? It's a little goofy for sure but not unsafe. Tons of non-military 320s have no safety at all, and people have been carrying fully-cocked striker pistols with no manual safety for a while; eg. the M&P.

Of course, there was the drop safety thing.

The rampant Dunning-Kruger effect that too many service members tend to develop on weapons handling is foremost.
If a policy says no-safety carry is OK, I expect them to be using it as a hammer when chambered, off-safe, and holding it by the barrel.
In between that, it'll be used as a loaded doorstop, latrine fishing lure, paperweight, etc. A hammer-down DA Beretta makes all of these situations substantially safer than a weapon with stored ignition energy that's already had a drop-safety problem.

I'd feel comfortable issuing G Berettas to a military. I am NOT comfortable with a no-safety P320.

At least, unless we make a military-wide mandatory course developed by P-F sorts that require at least a full week of proper pistol instruction and at least 500 rounds of shooting. Make strict standards on pass/fail and failures will never be allowed to be issued a handgun, ever.
Then make literally everyone in uniform go through that course - from new 11B Soldiers in OSUT at Benning to the most Fobbity Fobbits about to retire, everyone.
At which point, I figure we can talk about issuing pistols with stored ignition energy and carrying them off-safe.

That should cost only slightly less than the F35 program, I figure. :D

[ranger]

The rampant Dunning-Kruger effect that too many service members tend to develop on weapons handling is foremost.
If a policy says no-safety carry is OK, I expect them to be using it as a hammer when chambered, off-safe, and holding it by the barrel.
In between that, it'll be used as a loaded doorstop, latrine fishing lure, paperweight, etc. A hammer-down DA Beretta makes all of these situations substantially safer than a weapon with stored ignition energy that's already had a drop-safety problem.

I'd feel comfortable issuing G Berettas to a military. I am NOT comfortable with a no-safety P320.

At least, unless we make a military-wide mandatory course developed by P-F sorts that require at least a full week of proper pistol instruction and at least 500 rounds of shooting. Make strict standards on pass/fail and failures will never be allowed to be issued a handgun, ever.
Then make literally everyone in uniform go through that course - from new 11B Soldiers in OSUT at Benning to the most Fobbity Fobbits about to retire, everyone.
At which point, I figure we can talk about issuing pistols with stored ignition energy and carrying them off-safe.

That should cost only slightly less than the F35 program, I figure. :D

I understand your zeal but this is for an organization that is struggling to develop and administer a basic physical fitness evaluation. Another idea is focus on the very few Soldiers and Marines that actually go into harms way with best training and equipment and reduce the number of uniform military "support" deployed so they are not there and therefore do not need the weapons to start with.

[JRB]

I understand your zeal but this is for an organization that is struggling to develop and administer a basic physical fitness evaluation. Another idea is focus on the very few Soldiers and Marines that actually go into harms way with best training and equipment and reduce the number of uniform military "support" deployed so they are not there and therefore do not need the weapons to start with.

I'm afraid you may have missed my intended snark/sarcasm - hence the quip about the F35 program cost at the bottom. Obviously that sort of handgun program will never, ever happen, ever.

Personally I believe that uniformed Soldiers and Marines should always be capable of effectively defending themselves and winning those defensive battles, regardless of MOS, unit composition, or assignment.
I also believe that skill with small arms should be celebrated more than any PT test. I believe the fundamental difference between a Soldier and anyone else doing that job instead is the Soldier can do that job and bring an assigned weapon system and be skillful and effective with that weapon. But in today's military that is a very uncommon perspective.

Given the number of O3+ and CW3+ Soldiers I've been working with in my current assignment that absolutely threw a fit when they were told they had to qualify on an M4 in Ft Hood in addition to their M9's -not get assigned an M4, simply report to a range and shoot the thing- I suspect little is going to change in that regard.

For about the millionth time in my career this morning, I'm really wishing I'd picked Infantry or Armor instead of Maintenance.