HKPRO Forums banner

1 - 20 of 132 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,066 Posts
Your phone is 3 days late to the party; and it took this long for someone to post.
Before someone asks the answers to the 2 biggest questions are already in the comments:

All these weapons are being named after the unit that fields them first
2/7 fielded M27
3/8 fielded M38


and

The TS30 2.5-8x36mm because that's what they had left over from their SAMR's and/or Mk12's
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
All these weapons are being named after the unit that fields them first
2/7 fielded M27
3/8 fielded M38


and

The TS30 2.5-8x36mm because that's what they had left over from their SAMR's and/or Mk12's
Why the need to change the designation on an M27 based solely on the addition of what will be a temporary optic seems ridiculous.

The Marines plan on soliciting for a 1-6x or 1-8x optic sometime in 2018, which the M27 is also scheduled to get. A 2.5-8x or 3-9x Leupold provides an increased capability against 3.5x or 4x ACOG's but that capability diminishes once regular guys start getting the new LVPO's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,066 Posts
Why the need to change the designation on an M27 based solely on the addition of what will be a temporary optic seems ridiculous.

The Marines plan on soliciting for a 1-6x or 1-8x optic sometime in 2018, which the M27 is also scheduled to get. A 2.5-8x or 3-9x Leupold provides an increased capability against 3.5x or 4x ACOG's but that capability diminishes once regular guys start getting the new LVPO's.
You ain't telling me anything I haven't already said:
(August 2015) from:
Again, these are what multiple savvy end-users see as the most logical choice for our warfighters short of starting from scratch (which just ain't going to happen any time soon). Given that the 416 family has been proven both reliable and ridiculously accurate, and the CQBSS is a true military grade optic and the top dog in the 1-8x arena...it's just something that needs to happen to some degree.
Then again, a lot's happened in the optic market since even then. Will we be seeing your NF's in the mix perhaps?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
You ain't telling me anything I haven't already said:
(August 2015) from:


Then again, a lot's happened in the optic market since even then. Will we be seeing your NF's in the mix perhaps?
You can bet that Nightforce will be submitting for any of the upcoming LVPO solicitations that are coming out.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Why the need to change the designation on an M27 based solely on the addition of what will be a temporary optic seems ridiculous.
There isn't, and it is, but the Marine Corps "upper management" seems to think that weapon system designation is just one big joke.

They decided to "designate" the M45 based on "dood, it's a .45!" and let's not forget the G19M... I mean... "M007."

I've got nothing against line Marines, but whoever's coming up with these batsh_t "designations"...

~Augee
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,066 Posts
Regular Guy,

Both of the NF's are fixed at 125. ATACR is said to be 125y, NX8 is 125m (this is what NF website notes on their website).

Now take your/our S&B 1-8x24. They are actually fixed at 100m save for the "CC" setting which adjusts the parallax free under 7y for that setting. Again, they are only truly parallax free at specific distances. However, the the higher you go in magnification, the easier it is to notice at distance.

...or did you mean to ask if it was a "true" 1x bottom end?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
155 Posts
You ain't telling me anything I haven't already said:
(August 2015) from:


Then again, a lot's happened in the optic market since even then. Will we be seeing your NF's in the mix perhaps?
There isn't any optic that is a 1-8x that can touch the CQBSS or I would have it! If S&B would get their act together they would make a similar reticle to the H27 and I would own 3 Schmidt's instead of 2!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
There isn't any optic that is a 1-8x that can touch the CQBSS or I would have it! If S&B would get their act together they would make a similar reticle to the H27 and I would own 3 Schmidt's instead of 2!
Ha! Definitive statements, especially when based on one's perception usually are worth about as much as it costs to read them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,066 Posts
Ha! Definitive statements, especially when based on one's perception usually are worth about as much as it costs to read them.
Truth.

The CQBSS still brings a few things to the table, but I've yet to find the one LPVO that can rule all others in EVERY way. To be honest, I think the NF's will bring some heat but they aren't going to be the final word in the matter either...a notable entry, but not the final word. Be they mechanical, interface issues...size/weight...or actual function it's on the end user to find the best fit and apply it appropriately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,146 Posts
There's ALWAYS going to be parallax.
I’m referring to the CCmode on the S&B 1-8 Short Dot and whether or not this was similar.

I realize there will always be parallex at some distance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,146 Posts
@dms16, always willing to point me in the right direction, appreciate that!

Happy New Year!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
414 Posts
I'm just happy to see something come to fruition that was hinted at when the IAR first hit the Corps and they noticed that the M27 was more then accurate enough to supplant the MK12 in the SPR role as well.

Now if they could just get this M855a1 BS figured out, all will be well, right, and as it should be.

I remain skeptical about the supposed disparity between the M27 and M4A1 in component life with the second version of M855A1. Knowing how the Army has such a hard-on for the M4 and has fought tooth and nail to keep the legacy design, I have no doubt that they supplied the first version of M855A1 to the M27 and ran the new version of M855A1 in the M4A1 during the tests. Do I have proof? Not a bit. The disparity just seems way out of whack and a system that's known for running extraordinary round count life of components all of a sudden can barely keep up with an older legacy design? I call bull****.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Now if they could just get this M855a1 BS figured out, all will be well, right, and as it should be.
I think the Marines have it pretty well figured out - they've already announced that they'll be going with Alpha-1 and the move to the M27 for Infantry/Combat Arms is on the path towards reality as well. While not intended to run concurrent, there's a good possibility that the M27 and RCO replacement could be fielded at the same time.
 
1 - 20 of 132 Posts
Top