Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« John Edwards and straw man transactions | Main | Good to know the DC handgun ban is working »

New Army sniping rifle

Posted by David Hardy · 25 August 2007 08:33 AM

It's a variant of the SR-25 semiauto. 7.62 NATO, and quite accurate (.65 MOA average, I assume firing standard match ammo). Capable of carrying a suppressor, which has proven useful in the past.

· shooting

5 Comments | Leave a comment

Rivrdog | August 25, 2007 5:07 PM | Reply

I have a (mostly) National Match M14, and if I can shoot 1" groups (100-yard BR) with it even before I put any glass on it, I dare say John C. Garrand's gun would have been good enough, and there were probably enough basic rifles already in the field, so remaking them into sniper weapons at the depot would have been easier AND cheaper, but the Army is now firmly populated by the twanger-rifle folks, so out troops get what they get, but could have got better.

Letalis | August 26, 2007 9:36 AM | Reply

Much as I like my M1A, the component based AR-10/SAR-25 platform is easier to maintain long term. Wish I could afford one.

Speaking of cost, did I read somewhere that the US Gov't is paying KAC $15,000 for these rifles? That's a lot of clams, baby.

Letalis | August 26, 2007 12:19 PM | Reply

Regarding cost again, I had forgotten that during the Civil War the best sniper's rifle was considered to be the British Whitworth. Those rifles cost $500 per example. So, I guess you get what you pay for sometimes.

jlbraun | August 26, 2007 8:32 PM | Reply

"the XM110 operates by direct gas instead of using a gas piston system. "

Haven't we learned *anything* about how bad a direct gas impingment system is from the M4's performance?

pdb | August 28, 2007 9:33 PM | Reply

Haven't we learned *anything* about how bad a direct gas impingment system is from the M4's performance?

On the contrary, the extra gas volume of the 7.62 NATO gives the Stoner design added oomph to work the bolt and blow crud out of the action.

Also this new rifle will have a much lower rate of fire and presumably more attentive maintenance than the usual issued M4.

Leave a comment