Genuine, Army-issue military rifle for sale. Not a lookalike, the real thing.

[sir pball]

For $10,000, the Army's latest, greatest sniper rifle, able to kill a man out to almost a mile, can be yours. Complete with scope, bipod, and all the rest of the kit.

https://www.eurooptic.com/remington-defense-m2010-ngfm-300-win-24-with-optic.aspx

It's a bolt-action rifle, with literally no functional differences from the Remington M700 that it's based on, that you can buy almost anywhere, and that all except the most fervent gun control advocates agree should be perfectly legal. Hell, for the same $10K you can buy a basic long-action M700 and build one yourself.

Thoughts?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2010_Enhanced_Sniper_Rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_Model_700

[ret5hd]

1. Thoughts?

I think someone is overly self-impressed with his/her shit-stirring skills. It has been said that a truly skilled shit-stirrer needs only a kitchen ladle, never a scoop shovel.

Just sayin'. Pointin' no fingers.

[sir pball]

2. Eh, if I wanted to really stir the shit I'd have posted in GD.

Should a civvie be allowed to buy that rifle?

Disclaimer, I hunt all around the country when I can, at ranges from 25 yards for hogs in Florida to 392 yards for deer in Louisiana, I own several rifles for those purposes...that rifle would be absolutely ideal for the latter. Should I be allowed to own (or build my own rifle into) it?

ETA - a real good shit-stirrer only needs a teaspoon, throw the right tiny splatter of poop on the right person and you can start a whole brawl.

[safeinOhio]

3. Giving ammo to

fervent gun control advocates?

[sir pball]

4. Only if you want to ban hunting rifles

That's a bolt-action rifle, one shot and reload. If you wanted to restrict that, without restricting my lovely, walnut-stocked .243, how would you? Or just "ban 'em all"?

That rifle is legal across all of Europe AFAIK.

[safeinOhio]

5. So, does that come with same restrictions on

firearms across Europe?

[sir pball]

6. Yep, and I'm OK with that

It's not THAT hard to get a bolt-action rifle in most of Europe, basic test, background check, license and registration, maybe prove you take it to the range once a month (what the hell is the point if you don't??).

From what I understand, Arctic Warfare rifles are pretty popular in England.

[safeinOhio]

8. I'm good with strict background checks.

License to own and transport, strict storage laws and regular training. Don't think the NRA is.

[sir pball]

10. That's why I haven't been a member in 20 years.

I had to be when I lived in CT, only since the ranges required it, but since I moved to PA/ME/NY and had access to free public ranges I dropped them like a shitty ex.

[sarisataka]

7. I don't think there have been many people

Who have dropped 10 grand on a rifle intending it to be used in crimes. If you can afford the rifle you can afford to do white collar crime, where the real money is.

The rifle may be capable of a one mile shot, the shooter is a different story. I'm good but even at 10 to one odds I'd bet against myself.

[sir pball]

9. True, but it checks all the EBR boxes, moreso than a civvie AR

Genuine military-issue, magazine-fed, pistol grip, and a real "ultra-powerful" round.

[The Mouth]

12. Useless without a *LOT* of time (and $ in ammo)

I have a Winchester in 300 Winchester Magnum.

It can hit at 600 meters in skilled hands, but unless you are going to spend a LOT of time at the range, custom load your ammo it's pretty worthless for anything other than hunting.

Sure, if I were an assassin it would be a deadly thing, but for a professional assassin the legality of, and acquisition of any firearm would not be an issue.

The feasibility of such a firearm for any crime short of a highly planned assassination is minuscule. Expensive, bulky, *LOUD*, slow rate of fire, heavy. Really only good for hunting elk and target shooting.

Any and all data about the range of a rifle is almost entirely dependent on the skill of the shooter and quality of the ammunition.

[sir pball]

13. I'm not going to argue any of what you've said

It was just a snarky way to point out that genuine "weapons of war" and "military-grade guns" are surprisingly available. Semiauto black rifles are much less a weapon of war than the perfectly legal M2010, but they are much more devastating and should be restricted accordingly.

I have a 300 as well, actually a Remington. It's heavy, expensive to feed (handloading makes it cheaper and more accurate, though), and a little hard on the shoulder. I have taken a deer with it at 392 yards, but that absolutely took literal years of learning long range shooting. I usually shoot paper just for the challenge, but when I had a chance to hunt over sorghum fields it was a handy skill.

On a random note, you ever looked at the Mk248Mod0 load data? It's like 30% overpressure, I get the Army wants more range but just use a dang 338 at that point.

[The Mouth]

14. I suspected snark, but

the 'all gunz are bad and you're an evil person if you don't HATE all gunz and gunzowners' crowd is pretty much incapable of having, or not interrupting, any meaningful conversation or analysis. So better careful than banned


I am an antiquarian, I write with a fountain pen and all of my firearms are 100 year old + designs, so I find myself kind of contemptuous of both the tacticool crowd and the reactionary grabbers. revolvers, pump, and bolt action is quite sufficient to defend myself, family, and property.

[sir pball]

15. That's why I posted in this group

Probably won't get banned here, at least.

Funny, while I carry ballpoints day to day, I do like the Pilot disposable fountain pens for writing "nice" things.

I gotta point out that the Colt 1911 is a 100+ year old design though...

[Paladin]

16. Remarkably poor taste on your part, given current circumstances.

Even in this group.

[sir pball]

17. Do explain.

Small-caliber semiautomatic rifles are as destructive as machine guns and I've just recently said they should be NFA items.

But they aren't "military hardware" - my hunting rifle is, but nobody's calling to restrict it. I think that particular line of argument is disingenuous at best.