Barrett won the SOCOM adv sniper rifle contract

https://www.armyrecognition.com/marc...er_rifles.html

Quote:

---

The Advanced Sniper Rifle program asked industry to give the military a bolt-action sniper rifle that could be chambered in .338 Norma Magnum, .300 NM and 7.62mm NATO, with a platform for engagements beyond 1,500 meters. The rounds give shooters different mission options, from anti-materiel to anti-personnel.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleLebowski

https://www.armyrecognition.com/marc...er_rifles.html

---

So the US is moving away from 338 LM (that never really fully embraced) and adopting 338 NM for the super-duper MG and sniper rifles?

I wonder why the 7.62x51 requirement; low cost training, with long barrel life?

Why the 300 NM and the 338 NM? Seems like overlaping use.

What happened to 6.5 Creedmore SOCOM use? Is it going to be relegated to semi autos?

The US .mil will have precision/sniper loads in:

5.56x45
6.5 Creed
7.62x51
300 WM
300 NM
338 NM
338 LM
.50 BMG

I SUPPOSE they now have a platform that they can use 7.62 NATO all the way up to .50 BMG.

I’d say they have it covered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm just happy to see things move away from the Remington platform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TiroFijo

So the US is moving away from 338 LM (that never really fully embraced) and adopting 338 NM for the super-duper MG and sniper rifles?

I wonder why the 7.62x51 requirement; low cost training, with long barrel life?

Why the 300 NM and the 338 NM? Seems like overlaping use.

What happened to 6.5 Creedmore SOCOM use? Is it going to be relegated to semi autos?

The US .mil will have precision/sniper loads in:

5.56x45
6.5 Creed
7.62x51
300 WM
300 NM
338 NM
338 LM
.50 BMG

---

My understanding is that the choice of .338NM is that it runs in standard-length magnum actions, particularly with high BC bullets. With high BC bullets the LM OAL is right at the maximum length for feeding in a magnum action and is best done from a custom action. This also makes it such that magazine fed weapons are more reliable as the NM has a wider range of OALs that feed reliably, compared to LM.

The .300NM is just a necked down .338NM. So the choice of that to eventually supplant the .300WM makes sense.

I believe the eventual idea is:

5.56 GP
6.5CM in a Designated Marksman Role/medium-ranged sniper role, perhaps as in a GP role for SOCOM
7.62x51 in Training/Medium-ranged sniper role (phased out and replaced with 6.5CM and .300NM?)
.300 NM as Advanced Sniper (anti-personnel behind light cover)
.338 NM for target interdiction behind medium to moderate cover and light vehicles
.50 BMG (for heavy cover and heav(ier) vehicles).

Remembering that cover is a critical thing to account for on the battlefield.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RevolverRob

Remembering that cover is a critical thing to account for on the battlefield.

---

That's why the .50 cal guys brag about turning cover into concealment. Frankly, though, at some of these ranges, the easier answer is going to be mortars and artillery.

I'm struggling to understand the benefit of keeping a .300NM and also a .338NM. Seems that the smart move would be to just make it all .338NM

Is there some sort of ballistic benefit to each that justify both of those calibers that I'm not tracking?