Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: archy

I’d say go back to the M-40 and add a few modern touches. It worked well enough for me.

L


58 posted on 04/29/2017 8:42:10 AM PDT by Lurker (America burned the witch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]


To: Lurker
I’d say go back to the M-40 and add a few modern touches. It worked well enough for me.

L

For a serious, dedicated rifleman, I pretty much agree that an M40/M700/M84 has a lot going for it; for the 20-year-old six or eight months out of OSUT at Ft Benning or Polk, not so much. As for those *modern touches* note the AW type chassis stock on the new Army M700s, and that they're long action rifles [always have been, the Army specified the LA M700 action for their M24 SWS long ago] and that they're chambered in .300 Winchester Magnum.... just 37 years after the SEALs were working with M84s in .300 Win Mag we built for them at Crane.

When the 82nd Airborne was running snipers in Bosnia and I got to run along with them, they liked to work three-man teams in towers, one with an M24 boltgun in 7.62, another with a semiauto M25 [upgraded M14 or M21] and the third guy on the ground with a scoped M16A2 or an M4 with M203 and night vision pulling security on the ground.

It worked for them, in that AO, at that time, in those conditions. Textbook perfect? Nope? Workable then and there? Yep.

63 posted on 04/29/2017 8:58:34 PM PDT by archy (Whatever doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Except bears, they'll kill you a little, and eat you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson