Rifles - M24 SWS:
M-24 SWS question
I was just told that the M-24 used by the Army is a long action Remingtons
308/300 Win convertible. I've never seen one (and no write up in tools
of the trade), but wouldn't it be hard to keep a tight group (after re-zeroing)
after swapping barrels?
Can anyone tell me about the M-24 converting back & forth? All I've heard of is the 308 version.
USA - Wednesday, October 28, 1998 at 18:31:11 (EST)
Saw your 28OCT98 post on the convertability of the M24 SWS from .308 to .300 WM. Here is my recollection of the matter:
During the developement phase of the M24 SWS, there was a disagreement between different "factions" as to whether the rifle should be .308 or .300 Win Mag. The decision was partly decided by availability of ammunition (.308 was already in use, whereas the .300 Win Mag was only being handloaded by the AMU), but leave the rifle capable of being converted should the Army, or it's "factions" decide to use the more powerful round.
The M24 is not meant to be converted back and forth; the one-time conversion would probably be done at the factory level, or at least by the unit's gunsmith if available.
Jeremy W. <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CA USA - Monday, November 02, 1998 at 17:18:57 (EST)
Re: Conversion of M24 Long Action to .300 Win Mag
This is not practical except by considerable expense. The case head sizes of 7.62 Nato and .300 Win Mag are different. This would require another bolt assembly to be fitted to the receiver, and since the amount of use given to each fitted bolt would probably never be equal, the potential for disaster due to headspace differences would be high. Not a good idea!
Fred Fischer <email@example.com>
Even More Now the Peopl's Rep. of, MD USA - Wednesday, November 04, 1998 at 13:49:03 (EST)
Fred - I was on the planning and testing board for the M24. It was in deed designed to change over to 300 Win Mag. The M24 was first designed for SOF only until the regular army got involved. SOTIC built the original prototypes and had General Guest fire them at Camp Butner, NC. By the end of the day he was convinced that the "new sniper rifle" (since M24 wasn't its designation yet) was the way to go. The problem was the fight with Ft. Benning paper shooters. We wanted only a few to be changed over down the road, as a medium range weapon (900 to 1100 meters). Fort Benning wanted them all changed over. This fight continues over 10 years later. In the mid 80s we were still looking at several other rounds, the .338/.416 being one for even longer ranges, the .50 for hard target 800 to 1500 and the 14.5mm for past 1500. The Naby jumped in and muddled the waters with a rapid purchase, of the Barrett. My question was why not the M2 MG for the Navy and EOD since it weights about the same and does the rapid follow on shot, is more durable, and a heck alot more accurate. The .300 has advantages in night sniping as wind is not as critical, and does reach a speck further than the .308. We really wanted something that was more than a baby step past the .308 and was looking at the 300 Win Mag more as a stop gap until more study was made on the bullet issue. I know this will get some noses out of joint so jump in wherever you guys want. Lucky for me I kept copies of all the paperwork that flew about during that deal. SOCOM let Benning in so that they wouldn't foot the whole bill. I think some of the guys at Rock Island still remembers me from when I threw a Pelican case across the room when they were talking about 5 years for the bullet, 3 years for the barrel to match the bullet, and another 5 years to develop the end product. The Pelican case contained one of our guns and I said the civilians buy the dam things on a daily basis.
Fayetteville, NC USA - Wednesday, November 04, 1998 at 22:43:50 (EST)
Back to Hot Tips & Cold Shots