Remington Wins M24E1 Army Sniper Rifle Contract
The United States Army’s Joint Munitions and Lethality Contracting Center has awarded Remington Arms a 5-year contract to upgrade 3,600 current M24 sniper rifles to the new M24E1 Sniper Weapon System. The major change will be a conversion from the 7.62mm NATO (.308 Winchester) cartridge to .300 Winchester Magnum to provide “additional precision engagement capability and range”. The contract, potentially worth over $28 million, was awarded after a 9-month competitive evaluation. CLICK HERE for Remington Press Release.
The Army’s new M24E1 sniper rifle will share the Rem 700 long action (receiver) and trigger from the currently-fielded M24, but little else. (The Army specifically required that the M24E1 be built around the same 700 series long action and fire control system.) The M24E1 is considered a “total conversion upgrade”, by which the barrel, stock, magazines, muzzlebrake, suppressor, and even the optics will be changed. The M24E1 will carry a 6.5-20×50 variable power Leupold scope with a first focal plane (FFP) reticle that includes .300 Win Magnum bullet-drop compensation markings.
To the new M24E1s, Remington will fit 24″, 10-Twist (5R) hammer-forged barrels, chambered in .300 Win Mag. After the change in chambering, the most notable difference between the M24 and M24E1 is the new modular metal chassis/stock. There are a variety of adjustments in the rear buttstock section, which also folds forward for easier transport. The forearm has removable Mil Std 1913 Picatinny Rails to allowing fitting of night-vision devices and other accessories. Click Here for Forearm Photo.
M24E1 Contract Follows Production of 15,000 M24s By Remington
It is no great surprise that Remington won the contract to upgrade the older M24 sniper rifles. Remington has been produced nearly 15,000 M24 Sniper Weapon Systems for the military over the past 22 years. The M24E1 may be seen as the “natural evolution” of the Army’s existing Rem sniper platform. While the M24E1 rifle looks radically different on the outside, it remains much the same on the inside. According to Remington:
This long tradition of production and repair makes Remington the natural choice to upgrade this venerable system[.] Current operations in Southwest Asia exposed the need for a more powerful and longer-range sniper round. The baseline M24 was designed from inception to chamber a longer and more powerful round than the 7.62mm NATO, so an obvious solution to the capability gap was to finally exploit the M24’s long bolt action and chamber it for .300 Winchester Magnum.
Similar Posts:
- Remington Defense Secures Two Big Sniper System Contracts
- Army Likes the .300 Win Mag — Places $20 Million Ammo Order
- Barrett Wins Army Sniper Rifle Contract with Multi-Caliber MK22
- Remington Wins $79.7 Million USSOCOM Sniper Rifle Contract
- Army Extends ATK's Lake City Ammo Plant Contract
Tags: 300 Win Mag, Army, M24, M24E1, Sniper, Suppressor
Hammer-forged barrels? Hammer forging is mainly used for the high speed manufacturing of hunting rifle barrels, barrels not always known for their precision.
Why not button or cut rifling barrels most often used in benchrest competition where precision is paramount?
were my tax money goes. 28.2 mils for 3600 update rifles. that is why we need a new goverment.
how is geting a big bite of that 28.2
Heck Frank, that’s only $7,833.00 (per gun) for a barrel, alloy stock, some mags and all those cool Picatinny rails. In all seriousness, however, your point is well taken.
Here’s the story of how a $15 hammer became a mythical $600 hammer and now, inflated here to $5000: http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/1298/120798t1.htm.
Let’s ask the question: Why are the companies [selling to you and me as taxpayers] feel that they can overcharge the citizens of this country? Why aren’t the presidents of these companies being called before Congress and asked to explain their pricing?
Art, thanks for the clarification. I’ve removed my reference to the overpriced hammer. Still I think there are many examples of government procurement that should be called into question, as you suggest.
I was involved with one manufacturer that submitted rifles for this trial and I’m very familar with the requirements. The price is not just for rebuilding a rifle. It is for a complete deployable cased system, including high end optics $2K,suppressor $1.3K, stock $1.5K,Bipod, extra mags $8C, etc, etc. It adds up fast.
Remington has sold a good number of 5R 11.25 hammer-forged barrels that are good shooters. I can’t say that I’m all that impressed with the optics. There are other scopes it seems could be bought in quantity to keep the price @ $2K that would have better magnification ranges, e.g. 5-25. I suppose a good chunk of it is to pay Horus royalties.
“The major change will be a caliber conversion from 7.62mm NATO (.308 Winchester) to .300 Winchester Magnum ”
The 308 and 300 Win Mag are the same caliber. Both are 30 caliber.
You could say they are different cartridges of the same caliber.
You are correct it is the same bore size. So, more correctly is would be a cartridge or chambering conversion. But please note, this is a direct quote from the Remington Press Release:
“The major configuration change for this system is the caliber conversion from 7.62mm NATO (.308 Winchester) to .300 Winchester Magnum to provide soldier’s [sic] with additional precision engagement capability and range.
When I was a much younger, an fairly in-depth article written about the (then) new M40 for the Marine Corps spoke directly to the subject of cartridge selection, the .308Win, as opposed to other more capable ones well known, and the .300 Win Magnum was mentioned.
The military philosophy of that day held the view that the sound report of anything other than a standard cartridge, such as the .308Win, would increase the vulnerability of a sniper should an enemy recognize a different sounding rifle shot report.
Obviously, with the advent & employment of the .338 Lapua and now the .300 Win Magnum, that ‘old school’ of thought has been put out to pasture.
I do not doubt the need for a more capable cartridge than what the .308Win offers,… however I do wonder if what those ‘old school’ ers were concerned about, will come true.
Yes – I see the suppressors… those may well make the difference… IF they are used.
They should choose the Barrett 98bravo in .338 lapua Magnum. Very accurate and also rifle of the years.
Remington M24E1 another tacticool rifle with no use gadget…
http://www.barrett.net/firearms/model98b
I get that it does cost a lot for a system
but for 7400$ I can get more than that.
Is the gov’t that dumb or just bought off?
It appears that no matter what the military is stuck on a 30 caliber round. Personally I think that there are better 30 caliber options than the 300 Winchester Magnum.
There are good reasons for the 300 win mag.
These are being retrofitted just miles from my home and no matter what they cost they will save Marines and Soldiers lives on the battlefield by enabling those that use them the ability to reach out and touch the bad guy a little more effectively.
Cudos to the change. The new M-24 will hit my shoulder a bit harder but I will be a more effective tool.