Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Defense Tech Radio
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Podcast
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Soldier Systems
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

Take a Look at the Army's New Sniper Rifle

By now it is well known that the U.S. Army established a need to standardize a sniper rifle in 7.62x51mm NATO caliber. This was necessary in order to field one such rifle for precision sniping and to replace the literal myriad of sniper rifles currently in the system. For the record, these sniper rifles include the venerable M14 semi-automatic rifle and the M24 Remington bolt action rifle, the Mk 11 and others, which have been purchased by individual SOCOM units.

XM110.jpg

In the wake of 9/11 and America's entry into the Global War On Terrorism (G-WOT), most of the remaining 40,000 M14 rifles in the U.S. military's inventory (mostly the U.S. Navy) have been taken out of storage in order to be re-built as precision semi-automatic rifles for sniping use. Many of these rifles that weren't destroyed during the Clinton Era were given to "friendly" countries and there has also begun a move to "buy" some of them back.

The M14's popularity as a sniper rifle dates back to its development as a National Match competition rifle during the 1960's, its evolution into the M21 Sniper Rifle used in the Vietnam War, and its evolution into the XM25 Sniper Rifle by the U.S. Army and Navy in the years that followed. Properly fitted, the M14 is capable of extremely good accuracy and is highly reliable, but it has had less than optimum results from being used with a sound suppressor. Still, the M14 has made the transition into a 21st Century Sniper Rifle as the DMR (Designated Marksman Rifle) by the United States Marine Corps and its more recent transformation by the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).

Being a highly modified Model 700 Remington bolt-action repeating rifle, the M24 is capable of great precision accuracy. However, lessons were relearned in Somalia and in target-rich environments encountered in the G-WOT that a self-loading rifle can be fired in succession 4 to 5 times faster than a bolt action rifle. Thus, the Army was determined to standardize a semi-automatic sniper rifle.

The third rifle mentioned is the Mk 11, a refined version of the SR- 25 (Stoner Rifle-25) rifle, which is made by Knight's Armament Company, of Titusville, Florida. Like the others, the Mk 11 is chambered for the 7.6x51mm NATO cartridge, but it contains modifications dictated by the U.S. Navy SEALS, which is a member of the SOCOM. However, using the Mk 11 identified issues that the Army found desirable in an AR10-style sniper rifle...

Read the entire article from Soldier of Fortune at Military.com's Warfighter's Forum.

-- Christian

Comments

Additional mini-14 commentary:

Ok you have a stock all weather stainless mini-14 or standard staocker ---to further enhance accuracy WITHOUT a Target Barrel you may go to
har-bar.com and check out their stabilizing method very inexpensively $159 first fix then turn around and add a Springfield armory or such muzzle break and you have greatly increased your accuracy --say 1'groups without any other mods for about $225 and will embarrass the AR-15 matcher's at the range or --go shoot some gophers !

Again these mods are recommended to/for responsible target-hunters being primarily of the Pascifist line of thought - BTW the 55gr winchester supremes black oxide coated grey ballistic tip varmint rounds --do very well on deer --1" hole through and through --as tested so far --very accurate indeed --FAVORITE new
over the counter round for the 223---also will add barrel life and the nickle plated brass loads and ejects magnicifantly as well!!!
HAWK

Posted by: russhawk at December 10, 2008 11:49 AM


The Stock Mini-14 200-500 effect range as tested 750 rds a minute
1-1.5moa or better
DMR effect range 600yds .35-.45 SubMOA average.4
EMR effect range 1100yds .25-.35 Submoa average .3
unlike the M-16 Jams alot which is designed to wound and 2 enemy carry out targets the
M-14 KILLS put bluntly.
I own a Ruger All Weather --M-14 for leisure use until I can obtain a EMR from Quantico eventually
which are for military modified by military personnel --Ideal for Mtn or Desert terrain !!!
an outfitted stock / DMR or EMR will kill what ever you shoot at properly trained --shoot it like plinking targets --So easy a 1st time beginner can shoot you dead --my 10yr old nephew
could hit a 3" target at 200yds first time out -a real no brainer and NO Failures ever --not one jam as of yet --Kill Capability --Example deer at 250 yds --stockish M-14 standard copper/brass
both lungs and heart no exit wound --dead standing --27 kills straight --record 7 at one time --don't run if none fall !!! I have use a springfield --not bad at all
I've used an M-16 --disgusted 1991 --Jammer still
M-60 lots of fun
I will never part with my mini-14 and I plan to
purshase an EMR or maybe by then an improved yet EMR Mini-14 --note there is a twin drum feed available for the Mini 14 and the newer yet mini30 which I've yet to try --Why? I love my mini 14 --Hate chasing game --hell I started spooking my targets at 200yds just to shoot em running --very very easy with the Mini-14
note: Gulf War "Warlords" as if that matters --If I were back in service I'd insist on the EMR Mini
anytime!!! Try one you'll see --if one doesn't see you first --ps 30 out of 30 all head shots is easy --Note for a bolt action a modified 338 lapau magnum isn't that bad as a Mid range
1,500-2000yd rifle futher out keep the 50 range!
Additional note the trajectory on a mini is relatively flat so uphill/downhill or level is really no problem --run with a 1:7-1:8 twist accurized and suppressed --SWWWEEEETTTT Magic
Libertarian/Peoples Militia
note I really don't believe in taking human life --pressed I'll use the Mini --Point hopefully overstated --try watching History of the Rifle on the History Channel - with Gunny

Posted by: HAWK at November 20, 2008 02:40 AM


replica watch

Posted by: replica watch at August 22, 2008 02:20 AM


replica watches

Posted by: replica watches at August 22, 2008 02:18 AM


Now I have more Sword of the New World Vis in this game. Of course the Sword of the New World Gold is gained by I upgrade and kill the monsters. If you kill a big monsters you can get more Sword of the New World money.

Posted by: Sword of the New World money at August 16, 2008 08:51 PM


I had not more Lunia gold to buy my required equipment, My friends borrowed me some lunia war gold for me.Now I didn't worry about I have no lunia online Gold.

Posted by: Lunia gold at August 16, 2008 08:46 PM


But come to the bank, I have only known that save money will need 10% expenses, oh my god! Like that, my money also turned the cheap holic gold. I do not do it.

Posted by: cheap holic gold at August 12, 2008 11:51 PM


Do you know that I am so heart-struck? But I still will buy imvu credits for your equipment.

Posted by: buy imvu credits at August 12, 2008 11:49 PM


I was excited, originally it was such simple, and it also needs a little cheap mabinogi.

Posted by: cheap mabinogi at August 12, 2008 11:47 PM


I also thought that I was not RMB players, did not know how to lead our brothers, and I also did not have a large of hero online money.

Posted by: hero online money at August 12, 2008 11:45 PM


I also thought that I was not RMB players, did not know how to lead our brothers, and I also did not have a large of hero online money.

Posted by: hero online money at August 12, 2008 11:39 PM


If we do not have the good fortune this life, we will see with each other and that time I will buy last chaos gold enough for you in next life.

Posted by: buy last chaos gold at August 12, 2008 11:37 PM


Now, you have Hellgate London Palladium and you might buy tens of billions experience values.

Posted by: Hellgate London Palladium at August 12, 2008 11:34 PM


Finally, I gained have sufficed the LOTRO Gold, had the family. We were in together finally.

Posted by: LOTRO Gold at August 12, 2008 11:31 PM


As your apprentice, I always waste your cheap Habbo Coins. But I really not to think that you left so suddenly, then am duty-bound not to turn back!

Posted by: cheap Habbo Coins at August 12, 2008 11:28 PM


On the first point, the metallurgical stone! It also belongs to the category of stone, (and stones, to use the same), consumables, can be used only once!More importantly, it is to 30 points (equivalent to 30 yuan RMB) a, you also can be used to purchase Xiah Gold,And the stones were put forward what 1-2 (Anyway, I was raised to 47 pieces by the explosion goods, but fortunately left hand), only two Whitehead!

Posted by: Xiah Gold at August 7, 2008 09:31 PM


Quick summary of the srtivle: the new sniper rifle is the M110, made by Knight's Armament Company, and is a descendant of the AR-10. Single fire only, but with a 20 round clip. It averaged a 0.65 MOA in testing. Nice.

Posted by: 出会い at August 7, 2008 08:42 PM


Because of her waste, her money have been became the Archlord cheap.

Posted by: Archlord cheap at August 5, 2008 12:53 AM


Afterward, in our hard work, I accumulated finally diligently suffices the eve online isk to buy my first crow number ship.

Posted by: eve online isk at August 5, 2008 12:51 AM


We provide all wow goldservices. You can buy World Of Warcraft gold Cheap WOW Gold here ! Age of Conan gold(buy aoc gold)is on sale on wow7gold.com.We provide cheap aoc Goldaoc goldLord of The Rings Online goldLotro Goldbuy warhammer golddiablo3 goldgames gold

Posted by: World Of Warcraft gold at July 10, 2008 05:04 AM


Actually the M110 thus far has proved dismal at best.

All three that have been fielded to my sniper teams have failed and gone down. All have to go back to KAC because of these dramatic failures. We had to do a 1 for 1 replacement and lost all of our M24's which was the saddest day in our teams history. Now we can't get them back and we have no sniper rifles.

The M110 is nice in theory but makes no sense when put into operation. The only nice part about it is that you get a suppressor to come with it.

It's requires a high level of maintenance, encourages snipers to take multiple shots, jams after twenty rounds with the suppressor and is super expensive to fix.

Posted by: Josh at July 9, 2008 08:49 AM


nice to meet you

Posted by: cheap wow gold at April 13, 2008 08:52 PM


All rifle just made for shoot, and for the real warrior didn,t depend on what like and dislike the rifle that who their operate, all rifle type should be carry on to combat for proven, but let the facts show on...and sometime a good rifle not in the hands of a good shooter, in other part sometime a good shooter could be maximize a poor rifle...just for survive

Posted by: Erwin at December 11, 2007 10:43 PM


...having been a "Dead Head" (Delay and Harassment Trooper), give me the M-21 ANYTIME! Go ahead and talk about "Reaching out and Touching" someone. THAT Sniper System will always be the best (in numbers)!

Posted by: Baby Bell at November 1, 2007 08:07 PM


It was the Cheapo Mr Mac Namarra that queered the M16......He and the rest of the politicians that wanted to run the friggin war! Although Slick Willy did his best by destroying Combat Weapons (BTW Just think what the Bitch will do)!

Speaking as a USMC RVN Vet.......M16's sprayed a lot of rounds out in blind volume of fire and M14s are more useful for aimed precision fire, but can be used in semi or full auto if needed! Shooting like in the sandbox wars I would like to have had the M14 personally.......I carried a 12 ga shotgun in Vietnam, and it wasn't for bird hunting! The M16 sucked!

Posted by: W G Martin at October 1, 2007 08:06 PM


I don't know where john holland gets his info,but there is NO known propellant that can get 4400 fps with a 150 grain bullet out of a case the size of a 7.62 NATO, at pressures that the action and brass can handle.2400 fps is far closer to the truth,especially with a 20 inch barrel.A 300 Rem Ultra Mag may push velocities into that zone,but they need 105 to 110 grains of AA 8700,and your barrel life will be about 700 -800 rounds, even with a stainless steel barrel.You will also need a reciever not much smaller than one for a 50 BMG to handle the cartidge.

Posted by: ivan makuch at September 18, 2007 07:00 PM


I love how most people site Nam as why they hate or dislike the M-16. Guys the modern version is just as good as a AK-47, even better by the time you add its way more accurate. I think the M-16 has a lot of life left in her, and I hope shes still around for a good many years. Also comparing Nam M-16s to todays M-16s is like comparing Russias AKs to Chinas AKs. They both have the same name but one it a peice of trash, the other is a reliable gun that will last for many many years, in the hands of a profesinal soldier.

Nam was a wake up call, and sadly a bunch of men died. But lets not blame the guns we used, lets put the blame were it belongs, the French who go tus into the whole mess to begin with. A weapon is only as good as its user. A good gun in the hands of a bad user will never be as efective as a bad gun in the hands of a good user.

Posted by: 22lr at September 17, 2007 10:57 PM


As a Marine Corps, Viet Nam, veteran, I or we, my rifle and I became inseparable, we therefore have a very special bond. As a Marine, you get to know every strength and weakness, with the weapon that save your lfe, and help you save other lives. The reliability on the weapon and theability to maximine the full potential of the M-14, make you a very formable, and lethal combination. The Marine Corps, is the worlds very best in training, for individuals, into becoming experts, in the use of weaponary. I, am as proud as any Marine, that became an expert in the shooting of the very best rifle, ever used, during my tour in the Marine Corps, the M-14. I,ve used the 16, the 15, ak, M-1, by far the M-14, is the most reliable, dependable, and the one that you know can get the job done , whether it is 50 yds, or 1,000 yds. A true sempi fi. Any improvements, that could be made, would make it an even better rifle, a symbol, of freedom, being bought and paid for, the most meaningful way, kill or be killed.

Posted by: Gordon at September 3, 2007 12:13 PM


Leave it to Slick Willie and the New York Senator from Arkansas... Ignorance of the topic and anti-military, late 60's socialist left radicals. IF they pull off the dupe the stupid voters and get back into the White House we won't have to worry. Hillery has plans to cut the military to next to nothing. You'll be lucky to have a rifle and two clips of ammunition.

It looks like we're finally on the verge of getting a reliable replacement for the M16A2 and its flawed operating system. There are a number of good potentials ready and the alternative of a reissue of the solidly dependable M14. The lighter Mini 14 could be quickly redone to use the standard NATO 7.62 necessary to put our people on an even footing with the insurgents. You guys in the field have been duped with BS about the weight and ammunition you can carry. A week to find out you've taken away their hiding places (you can fire through the walls and through logs used for bunkers) and you will fall in love with it. I was going to give you actual weight differential, but I have not had an opportunity to make sure of the exact.

Posted by: JMMC62 at August 29, 2007 10:46 AM


This stock system for the M-14 will solve many problems and move it "Back to the Future". Semper Fi. Dike www.ShortRifles.com

Posted by: Duke761 at August 28, 2007 12:24 PM


The priciple problem with the M-16 rifle was the MilSpec rod ammo. The weapon was designed to fire DOW octahedral-flake powder producing the 4400fps velocity. FAM firing had no detrimental affects except on the barrel over extended use. The DoD cheaped out and replaced it with cap and ball ammo, making it the same as the old M-1 carbine ammo. Thusly the the slower burning rod powder failed to accuate the extractor piston cojent to the mechanism. Ater 3 rounds the carbon buildup was so bad the it further degraded the weapons loading and extracting to the point that u had to pry each shell out of the chamber after firing single shot.

Posted by: Jim Hollad at August 27, 2007 01:16 PM


The priciple problem with the M-16 rifle was the MilSpec rod ammo. The weapon was designed to fire DOW octahedral-flake powder producing the 4400fps velocity. FAM firing had no detrimental affects except on the barrel over extended use. The DoD cheaped out and replaced it with cap and ball ammo, making it the same as the old M-1 carbine ammo. Thusly the the slower burning rod powder failed to accuate the extractor piston cojent to the mechanism. Ater 3 rounds the carbon buildup was so bad the it further degraded the weapons loading and extracting to the point that u had to pry each shell out of the chamber after firing single shot.

Posted by: Jim Hollad at August 27, 2007 01:15 PM


Oops forgot to note it was 2 mags per man in the post immediately below about my M-16 in nam.

Posted by: joe at August 27, 2007 10:59 AM


Oops forgot to note it was 2 mags per man in the post immediately below about my M-16 in nam.

Posted by: joe at August 27, 2007 10:58 AM


Reading Jim from Parris Island's comment below about being issued the M-16. Here's one for you.
In late March-early April 1967, while in the field, I was issued the M-16 and they took away my M-14 (which had a selector by the way). Short on magazines and cleaning kits, we got mags per man (and no strip loader like the 14) and 1 cleaning kit per 3 rifles. Zero - that is ZERO instruction on maintenance and firing. We were allowed to fam fire one magazine of rounds before going into the field. Rumor mill was that because it was plastic, you could clean it by dunking it it in the rivers as you were on patrols (which I did). Then comes April 30, 1967 and Mike 3/3 goes up hill 881 South. So many of those rifles jammed it would have been a great joke if it weren't for the fact that the NVA were killing us. They've got mudproof automatic AK47s and we actually had men playing Boone and Crocket firing a round and then punching out the empty casing by ramming a cleaning rod down the muzzle! I guess the positive side of it is the fact that we didn't have to worry about having to reload our two magazines one round at a time. Other than that, there were only 3 problems with it: 1) couldn't ram the bolt home if the new round failed to chamber properly (later fixed with the charging button) 2) weak extractor pin which would only be a problem if you had an expended cartridge that for some reason got stuck in the chamber -- a very rare problem that would occur only if the chamber or the rounds were dirty or prone to corrosion -- and we all know that never happens in a combat situation; and 3) non chrome plated chamber which increased the likelihood of corrosion and rounds failing to extract.

What I found out many years later is absolutely hilarious (if it weren't for all those dead Marines). In field tests BEFORE USMC adoption of the M-16, the Army went to MacNamara and recommended an external device for ramming the bolt home, a stronger extractor spring and a chrome plated chamber. MacNamara's reply: If the rifle needed any of those things, Stoner would have built it into the design. No go.

Fortunately, they were able to hush up the cause of the deaths of so many of my friends so MacNamara's career remained unblemished until he rolled over in the documentary Fog of War. Of course, even then he never copped to the M-16 fiasco.

Posted by: joe at August 27, 2007 10:56 AM


I was not a marksman not even much more than guarding a few fences and have not had the opportunity to fire many rounds from an m-14. I had to carry the m-9, m-60, and the m-16 and the whole time I rather missed hunting with my dads 30-06, 30-30, and 303 British. All 3 were much better at hitting a target spot on and even the 22's at the scout camp fired with more accuracy than the m-16.

I don't see any reason for a highly skilled sniper to be forced to carry only a small caliber weapon based off the nasty (AR-15) m-16 rounds. The .223 has a uneven ballistics range to penetration. I also rather disliked that the weapon was prone to having a slight problem with wind having too much effect to the flight path.

Yes a good sniper can make due with any rifle or even a flintlock if he had to... BUT WHY HANDICAP OUR TEAM?

Shoot even bringing back the old 303 would likely give our side an advantage. Creating a new 303 in semi auto wouldn't be so bad either.

Posted by: JW at August 27, 2007 12:36 AM


Luna, JJ:
If the new rifle is adopted your M-14 dreams may be realized. Join a local shooting club that is an affiliate of the Civilian Marksmanship Program and you will be eleigible to purchase one when and if they become aviailable. I would consider the Remington bolt action of a certain vintage myself.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at August 26, 2007 10:21 PM


Thankfully Bill Clinton didn't give the M-14s to his gay campaign contributors the way he gave nuclear secrets to his Chinese campaign contributors.

Posted by: Keith at August 26, 2007 08:15 PM


1 - Really? 10,000 sniper rifles out there? (Look up myriad!).

2 - Amusing (NOT!) to consider that once upon a time in my checkered career as a weapons designer I was told off by an Army procurement officer at -------- Arsenal after I was caught eating lunch with the members of an artillery battery: "Bill, don't ever talk to the troops. WE are the developing agency. THEY use what we develop." The system designed to provide -- through the "schools" -- field input from a ROC through a MENS to a development was perverted by those in the system who "knew better" what the soldier should want! Is anything changing? No!

3 - I hope that those who sit in comfortable offices and read the NYT and WSJ can, maybe, just maybe, come up with something useful. But, in accord with Santayana, I tend to the belief that their efforts will result yet again in a piece of equipment for everyone that satisfies no one.

Posted by: Unclewilly at August 26, 2007 07:43 PM


1 - I knew there were a lot of sniper rifle variants since 1917, but 10,000?

2 - I wonder if the Army will inquire of the sniper what he really wants. Or will it be as it was when I was designing weapons for the Army: "Bill, don't ever talk to the troops. We are the developing agency. They use what we develop."

3 - All sound suppressors (aka "silencers") with which I am familiar (since 1944) affect transitional ballistics--and hence accuracy-- because they must be located close to the point of bullet emergence. Is there some new way to suppress the shock wave from a supersonic bullet?

Posted by: WKincheloe at August 26, 2007 07:27 PM


Couldn't resist a swipe at Clinton

Posted by: Dayle at August 26, 2007 06:50 PM


It has been a long time since I used the M14, and I fell in love with the rifle. I love the ifle so much that I have been trying to purchase one for my collection. I have tried for the last several years, if one can be purchased please let me know where and how. THANKS

Posted by: Luna,J. J. at August 26, 2007 06:11 PM


The XM110 is problemtatic and while a semi auto is a great addition to the sniper's "tool box" it should not replace exisiting systems. The sniper must be able choose the right system for the mission he is tasked with rather than adapt tactics based on his weapon system.

Posted by: tactinstr at August 26, 2007 06:09 PM


M-14 has always been a good rifle. They keep modifying it to keep up with what is currently going on. What happened to training to use what you have to the utmost?

14 is a good rifle, has greater effective range than much of what is out there, greater stopping and penetrating power than most of the standard infantry rifles out there. If the soldiers are tought to use the old peep sites, you can have increased accuracy out to several hundred yards without the addition of optics. High capacity magazines and stripper clips are still out there and the ones that were taken care of work well when the person is used to using them.

Everything designated as a sniper rifle is not intended for a full time sniper to use from a mile + ranges. the 14 is very accurate at medium to the shorter end of the long range spectrum and is nearly as accurate as a bolt action. It has an endurance quality that all rifles since it's production have been hard pressed to match.

Posted by: Ron at August 26, 2007 05:25 PM


I agree with Melley/ We should keep the .50 calber.
Extremely long range effective shots can be a necessity.

Posted by: Robert Heffner at August 26, 2007 02:06 PM


I think the Army would be well served by including the new Canadian sniper rifle in their search. It is highly accurate and has killing power up to a mile. It also can be quickly adapted for different targets.

Posted by: Tom at August 26, 2007 12:13 PM


I think the new sniper rifle is a must.I also think u should pull troops out of iraq.

Posted by: brad at August 26, 2007 12:05 PM


I think the new sniper rifle is a must.I also think u should pull troops out of iraq.

Posted by: brad at August 26, 2007 12:04 PM


No one mentioned the amount of energy that's delivered by a 30 caliber, basic rifle cartridge,
may be hard pressed to do the job at 1,000 yds.
I see where the newly "discovered .416 bullet fitted into a necked dowm .50 caliber MG round has the ability to reach out and "kill" man
sized targets @ 2,500 yards.....That's a sniper round for you.

Posted by: Bob Melley at August 25, 2007 01:40 PM


I think what the military today is doing is great, taking old demiliterized rifles and getting older rifle back and turning them into sniper rifles is great. now the military will have a new tactical sniper rifle to add to the list.

Posted by: Ian Pontinen at August 25, 2007 08:39 AM


All the comments concerning the new sniper rifle are an interesting read, but they totally miss the point of what is a sniper, enhanced marksmanship infantryman, counter-sniper, or whatever other politically correct title the law and policy makers presently give them. Simply put, a sniper is a projectile weapon expert. It really doesn’t matter what weapon, or weapon system, you give a sniper; if trained correctly, he will adapt quickly to using it to the fullest extent of its capabilities.

The key phrase is “trained correctly”. Instead of spending millions of dollars developing and producing the ultimate sniper rifle, we should spend that money training the ultimate sniper. The tool is nothing without the expert hand of the craftsman who will spend thousands of hours on the range learning the capabilities of the weapon, and ammunition being used.

There are two considerations when comparing a semi-automatic and bolt action weapon in the sniper environment.

1. A sniper is a specialized infantryman. As such, he needs to be able to operate as one if needed. It is beneficial that the standard sniper weapon not be so specialized that it can’t function in that scenario. Granted, the normal infantryman will spray and pray in a fire fight. The trained sniper should be much more efficient in his fire. The scene in the movie “Blackhawk Down” where two snipers hold off a pack of Somalians is a fine example of this.

2. A tactic that I and my spotter learned to do, to be more effective, was for the spotter to watch the round on its way downrange and predict, after hours of observation, whether it was going to hit the target, or not. (Whether, or not, a sniper ever misses and the trick to doing this is the subject for a different discussion.) I could then quickly adjust, using Kentucky windage and have a second round on its way before the first round arrived, not giving the target a chance to take cover. I daresay that an expert with a bolt action weapon would be hard pressed to accomplish this.

Posted by: Doug at August 24, 2007 09:26 PM


In 1996 I was at Quantico VA for the US Marine Corps weapons demo. On hand was the ever so popular H&K PSG-1 wich I had the plesure of fireing off 10 rounds. As far as the most accurate non bolt action SR, this proved true not only to my own personal experiance but also to several others who were teasting,(AKA-haveing fun shooting) this rifle. It shot 1/4 moa strait out of the case@ 100yards but one thing none of us liked was the fixed scope. The biggest problem was the then 12K price tag per unit not to mention that in a CZ I think this rifle would fail as far as being in a drag bag, setup, bulk etc. the fact that it had a box mag and no bolt wouldn't work for the Marine S/S who may be on a special operation. The ejection of the caseing was also a big nono when trying to be concealed. Who would wanna have to chase down there brass after takeing out a target???? Other weapons were the Robar SR-90,various US design bolt actions as well as a few US manufac's that were trying to sell the pitch of a 7mm and the 30.06

My feelings were that the 30.06 was an all around more accurate weapon with alot better effective point target range. The manufac's were claiming 1250 yards PT with match grade ammo or a special round that would be produced such as the Marine Corps SAR rounds in the .308 used today. Many opinions as far as what the best rifle for this MOS is in all branches of the military. For instance Gunny Harris who was the SNCOIC of stone bay range S/S school when I was there swore by the 30.06 over anything used buy the current US military, but, the S/S instructor at Quantico was very impressed with the .338 Lau wich is more of a LD sniper system vs a MR system that is employed today in the .308

For the area of combat that these Marines and soldiers are in today however weather you are part of a STA Plt or a DM, marksmen, whatever IMO I think that an AR15 type magazine fed sniper unit would be fine. I cannot imagine that there are alot of "missions" going on in a CZ where a snipers role would be to lay diwb in a group of "cactie" shoot, and slither off into the sand. Shooting from a bld or in a urban area would allow the freedom of a brass ejecting weapon without much compromize and would be alot easier with the ability to carry a couple 5,10,20 round box mags vs the old wallet O' ammo with the bolt action.

The last part of this rant is the genious of Slick Will as usual. Besides the fact that him and his wife, hillary more than bill, hated our military and Bills nice giveaway our weapons to these "Friendly countries" I wounder if China may be one? And now we the tax payers have to buy back what was ours in the first place even after giving them away. Good job Bill! your familey sets the American way to a T in your twisted mind of how America aught-n-be. Maybe next Hillary can release all of our classified info to these "friendly nations" as you both have a record of trying to buy freedom rather than honor what Americans have gave up to be the best, most feared, powerfull nation on earth. Thanks to your lead we are now trying to recover from this "hi-atus" of Hillary's 8 years of being the CIC, you now have another chance of it. God help us if you ever get into the white house again.

Semper Fi

Semper Fi

Posted by: Denis at August 24, 2007 06:11 PM


With all the new wepens that are be invented and made, I think that we should keep some of the interesting parts of them at home and not advertise them. I enjoy reading about the new wepens and what they do as I watch them on TV, but I don't think we should be selling our surplus to other countries of our old wepens unless they ae out dated. Look at the AK47 which has been around for years and is now used on our troops in other countries. The country that made them and sold them has made a profit, but I would sure hate to see where one our rifles, that we manufactured was used against our troops. So be it with our troops.....

Posted by: Roger Marshall at August 24, 2007 05:08 PM


THIS IDEA IS FOR SNIPING ONLY!!!!!
SIMPLY, PUT A 2 OR 3 SECOND DELAY ON A BOLT ACTION (SENSOR TYPE) THIS WILL TAKE THE FLINTCH OUT. EVEN SEASONED SNIPERS WILL FLINTCH A LITTLE. DONT WANT TO USE IT? JUST TURN IT OFF. DONT BELIEVE ME, MARK YOUR TARGET, CLOSE YOU EYES, LET SOMEONE PULL THE TRIGGER

Posted by: fj willie at August 24, 2007 05:06 PM


During Vietnam I used the M21 Sniper Rifle in country. It was a very effective rifle, since that time frame I have used other rifles, ie. the Remington M24 and Baret 50 Cal. This were also good weapons. It is outstanding that the Military is excepting a new standardized weapon for the Silent Shooters. Death before Dishonor, One Shot One Kill.

Posted by: J.R at August 24, 2007 04:55 PM


"Regaudless of whats the topic, when we sell weapons of any kind to other countries its not a good thing. We announce to everyone we are the last superpower left. Not a good thing to provoke the enemy. last we show the world what we have on tv programs. Not a good thing! What happend to being secret. I just think we could and should be more humble as a nation. Just a thought. crazedvet91

Posted by: crazedvet91 at August 24, 2007 02:41 PM"

I just got a little bit dumber. damn teh internets.

Posted by: Wes at August 24, 2007 03:39 PM


Regaudless of whats the topic, when we sell weapons of any kind to other countries its not a good thing. We announce to everyone we are the last superpower left. Not a good thing to provoke the enemy. last we show the world what we have on tv programs. Not a good thing! What happend to being secret. I just think we could and should be more humble as a nation. Just a thought. crazedvet91

Posted by: crazedvet91 at August 24, 2007 02:41 PM


First if a bullet tumbles it is less effective!!!!! My Marine corp. brother got the idea it made the m16 more destructive from some dumb azz instructor. throw a spear sideways, wow!!! really smart?. The m16 does not tumble the bullet, unless the rifling is worn out or it strikes something to deflect ,it like grass. Virtually every hunter in America uses a 30 cal bullet in various weight and length to put down animals 4 times size of a human at it some cases 500yards. How many hunters use a 30 cal verses a 22 to bring down and cleanly kill a man sized target. At least 99% 30/30 300savage 308 30-06 303 british 7.62 russian including those fired by ak47 sks ect. 300 H/H 300 win mag. 300short mag. 30-40 krag 300 norma 300 weatherby and another half dozen modern all on a bullet that is 308 caliber / 7.62 mm..
Civilians are not limited by rules and regulations. just as the Genius John Moses Browning who gave us the 1911 45 colt pistol and is the most popular pistol for 100 years / the browning 30 and 50 cal machine guns the 30 BAR the double action pistol, so do todays gunmakers to numerous to name continue to refine the 30 cal. But perfect is perfect for a lightly armored target,the 30 is it and if i included those others within a few hundredths of an inch another dozen calibers could have been included in the 30 relm.
In conclusion for the Tumblers who have been lost in Space. ream out your barrel so the bullet won't grip rifling thus creating a NO SPin Zone but lets the bullet tumble when leaving Barrel and send me your target at a distance of 50 FEET if out of 10 rounds-- 2 hit a 6 inch target I will buy you a case of beer. annd if you can hit a target at 100 yards and the bullet penetrates a 2x4 I will buy a you a barrel.
below is a copy of an earlier post not me. my response is I would rather have a thousand illegals than this dumbass on my side. If anyone knows this butt someone turn him in to authorities. He is destructive of everything a true american should be. I am for sending anyone illegal back, but murder is a million times worse than immigrating illegally. BASTARD

The M14 will always be my 3rd love(the first being my wife of 25 years, Wanda Sue and the second being my old hunting dog Jethro). I fell in love with this beauty back in the 'Nam. When I got back to the world, this baby aimed true through all the deer, rabbits, dogs and mexicans I hunted.

Go easy, friend

Posted by: Paul Brasch at August 23, 2007 05:10 PM

Well Paul MAY GOD DAMN your soul.

Posted by: jerry sutton at August 24, 2007 02:31 PM


Bill Clinton got away with the destruction or give away to "friendly" counties of most of the 1.6 million M-14's produced for our armed forces between 1957 and 1964. Only 40,000 remain. Perhaps Springfield Armory, Inc. could be contracted to correct Clinton's wonton destruction of America's best service rifle. The M-14 with a synthetic stock would make an excellent desert and mountain warfare weapon. The compact SOCOM version could be used for urban warfare. I just returned from Iraq and I saw a few M-14's in the sniper role.

Posted by: Richard Samuel Najjar at August 24, 2007 01:31 PM


There were 1.6 Million M-14's made between 1957 and 1964. Only 40,000 still exist because the Clinton administration destroyed most and gave away others to so-called "friendly" countries. Those excellent service rifles would have been great sustitute standard issue for open desert and mountain warfare. I did see a few in Iraq. Synthetic stocked M-14's are easy to maintain, gas piston v. gas tube equipped, and as accurate as an autoloader can get. That ought to be reason enough to re-instate them, at least in the sniper roll.

Posted by: Richard Samuel Najjar at August 24, 2007 01:17 PM


As I read in another individual's comments, this sounds just like the Clinton's idea of a "Perfect" rifle. Give the wheapons that have proven themselve's to our country to other governments so that, they can turn them upon us in the future and then take the arm's out of the hand's of the adverage hard working American citizen so we cannot protect ourselves from harm, only do not take their fire arms or the fire arms of the people they hire to protect them only. The rich and very rich will have the capacity to protect themselves but the regular individual will not be able to protect their family nor themselve's.

This is becomming more and more typical of our government as time goes and the UN tells the American people what is best for them. Our right's are slowly being taken away as time goes on a regular basis.

The best example of this dates back to our Founding Father's of this great nation. The saying "Innocent until proven Guilty" is no langer the law, for it is now, "Guilty Untill Proven Innocent!"

Posted by: R. McKlemurry at August 24, 2007 12:37 PM


Give me back my m14. Only jammed a very few times. .The d.... m16 got many good Marines killed in Nam.
Semper Fi.
RVN66-68

Posted by: Cueman at August 24, 2007 12:23 PM


"the lighter caliber was requested by our military so the enemy would be wounded,and his unit would tie up more people to carry him"

That is an urban myth, and no more true of the 5.56 than the 7.62. Military rounds are designed to kill, but lethality is detrmined by Shot Placement.

BTW I'm suprised no one has advocated bringing back the '03 Sprinfield yet! Now that was a great rifle!

Posted by: Wes at August 24, 2007 12:10 PM


Put 20 G.I. on one side with M-14 and 20 rag head on one side with M-16 and see what wins. M-14 will kick ass . I was R A come Aug 11 1966 to Jul 1969. Big Red 1

Posted by: Ron at August 24, 2007 11:54 AM


One of the best sniper rifles manufactured was the old M1-C sniper version of the venerable M1 Garand. Plus, the .30 cal (30-.06) round would easily reach out to 6-700 yards and in the hands of a real expert (not one who just fires expert on the range) could take out targets out to 1,000 yards. The principle limitation of the M1-C was the optics which were of 1940's vintage. The scope was a bit unwieldly because it had to be mounted off-axis to permit the loading of the Garand 8-round clip and the ejection of the spent cartridge casing. Again, back in the day, the M-1, the BAR, the light and heavy (watercooled) machine guns were all chambered for the same round simplifying logistics.

I never liked the M-14 in it's standard issue variety. I believed the M-1 to be vastly superior in accuracy. The M-16 was another travesty because it's close tolerances gummed up pretty quickly in field use. You could feel the cyclic rate slow after just one magazine in a freshly cleaned weapon. Give me the M1's 9.5 lb weight and ruggedness any day. Have carried all three, using two in combat. I was a machine gunner (the 1919A4) which ended my rifle carrying days until Vietnam.

I know the expedient for going to the M-14/M-60 family was to standardize ammunition with NATO but we have never fought a war with NATO using that ammunition. At 19.5 lbs, the BAR could also be contrary sometimes; you need to know your immediate action very well. But I don't think any rifle round has matched the .30 cal (30-06) for range, lethality and stopping power.


USMC Mustang

Posted by: JES at August 24, 2007 11:49 AM


It's about time the boys in D.C. got their asses in gear and gave us something new to shoot with. Most of the weapons we've got have been in use for 40 years if not longer! That is ridiculous and I for one am glad to be given something new. I love the M110 SASS. It's light, it's reliable, it's accurate, and dear GOD is it quiet. Would have preferred a slightly lighter trigger pull but 3 pounds works out okay. Another up-shot of this is since it's based on the AR-15 quite a bit, most of us already understand it's operation pretty well.

Posted by: Ghost at August 24, 2007 11:25 AM


Too many people driving a desk at the Pentagon with nothing else to do but screw up the works. Let the users use what they know works and stay the hell out of their way! They should field a Brigade, Hell- a Division for the Sandbox right in the Pentagon and get them out of there mucho pronto. Too much beauracratic B.S. Issue in point......army uniform changes to the "doorman dress blues"...give me a break! Put WARRIORS in charge of our army!!!
The "Old Master Sergeant of the Army"

Posted by: Dave Mitchell at August 24, 2007 11:13 AM


I went thru advanced marksmanship school (sniper school) at Ft. Campbell in 66 with an arms room M-14 that we "accurized ourselves" at the end of the course we were shooting 600 yds. at a 4" bull. The M-14 handled that range very well. At the end of the course we even shot 1,000 yds with a 10X unertl and that worked out pretty well too. I wasn't utilized as a sniper (M-60 Gunner),but I had to use an M-16 for a short period of time (after hospitalization),and as far as I am concerned I'll take the 7.62 over the 5.56 any day. One last point some of you may not be aware of, the lighter caliber was requested by our military so the enemy would be wounded,and his unit would tie up more people to carry him.

Posted by: bushrat68 at August 24, 2007 11:03 AM


The Remington 700's the Corps has been useing are the finest! In today's world the 50 cals. their useing are even better, car,truck, person or building, you've now the the power you need!

GySgt USMC (Ret.)

Posted by: Ski at August 24, 2007 10:53 AM


I remember the M14 back in the '80s on my ship the L.Y. Spear (AS36). All the Gunner's Mates and security teams that carried them hated them. They were heavy and bulky to them and they wanted the lighter M16, that was easier to carry down passageways. I'm not surprised that many were destroyed or sold to other countries in the '90s because most people back then didn't like them.

Posted by: Joe Allison at August 24, 2007 10:41 AM


used this bad boy in combat over the last 5 years. we prefer not to bag any other branch, but in our regiment- 2/75 this is by far the superior sniper rifle ever produced. not once ever jammed.

leave it alone so we can continue the one shot method.............Rangers lead the way..

Posted by: cowboys at August 24, 2007 10:33 AM


Leave it up to the Army to develop a mediocre tool that fits “all situations” and forces that tool on soldiers to make work. Does Tiger Woods compete with just one club? This is an excellent tool for a “sharp shooter” in an Infantry Rifle Squad. But a “Sniper” weapon system? The article states that this can be used to engage multiple targets rapidly in a very short period of time. As a 23 year veteran and a USMC Quantico Sniper Instructor with over 12 years of operations experience I ask you. Under what conditions should a Sniper have to rapidly engage multiple targets? Why didn’t they add a full auto selector switch and bayonet lug?

Posted by: Robert Burgette at August 24, 2007 10:14 AM


Lots of nonsense comments here.

Since this was supposed to be commentary about the new SNIPER RIFLE, it is baffling why some are bringing the M-16 into the discussion. This is probably because many of the commentators have no flipping idea of what they are talking about. As soon as you hear "cheap plastic rifle" or "Mattell", just ignore them; they know nothing.

But since the 5.56 has been tossed into the discussion: it has been dropping enemies (tens of thousands of them)on the battlefields for forty years now, wake up. I've met more than one individual who havee been shot MULTIPLE TIMES by 7.62 out of an AK, so it is no magic death ray.

7.62 NATO kills too. So do 6.5/6.8, but stop dreaming, they will never happen. .50 cal? Come on, have you actually carried/fired one? Too heavy. Useful, yes, but only in limited circumstances. .50 cal = Hollywood.

On a related note: those dreaming of "1,000 yard kills"...the average sniper shot in OIF: 300 meters or below. Average assault rifle engagement range: 90% below 100 meters, with the majority below 50 meters.

Posted by: Wes at August 24, 2007 10:05 AM


That sounds like the Clinton Administration, destroying or giving away very expensive sniper rifles to so called friendly countries. Rifles that will probably be used against us in an upcoming war.The Clintons not only want to disarm the general public but also the army.

Posted by: Charles Nesbitt at August 24, 2007 09:47 AM


does't anybody used a H&K PSG-1 or its sister the MSG90, when this would not work get your self a SSG 3000

Posted by: mr T at August 24, 2007 09:11 AM


As a former combat Marine, I carried the M-14 equipped with a starlight scope and bipod for most of the 27 months I spent in Viet Nam. Accuracy was unbeatable for a shoulder fired weapon and never did jam. Can't say the same thing for the M-16 or it's derritives. Rapid follow-up shots are a necessity many times in active combat.

Posted by: Rodger Greear at August 24, 2007 08:49 AM


I used the M-14 in Viet Nam and if there is a better all-around infantry wweapon made, I've yet to have seen it in my 25 years of active duty. The only improvements the USMC made to it for sniping was the scope and glass bedding the action/barrell. I have seen snipers make head shots at 600 meters with iron sights, and out to 1200 meters with the scope. In a 7.62 X 51, can anyone else do better?

Posted by: ChamberDoc at August 24, 2007 08:06 AM


I agree, we are confusing the two missions of snipers. In the USMC we can be either hunter (high value but few targets), forward observers to direct support fire, intell collection with no fire to give your position away (there are ways to cover your shot with supporting fire), covering fire in support of offensive actions, or even support within a defensive perimeter.

If the US Army value rapid follow-up shots more than precision....such weapons will have limited (or not so good) success in a 'hunting' environment.

Not exactly apples and oranges, more a scapel or a machete. Include two weapon platforms and choose the best for the mission at hand.

Posted by: Montana8541 at August 24, 2007 08:04 AM


I never saw an M-14 gas cylinder uscrew and I watched hundreds (thousands?) of shooters fire M-14's and later, M-1A's in thousands of rounds of competition from 1966 to 1986 when I was actively shooting matches. In fact whenever I saw an "alibi" on a high power rifle range it was almost always a bolt rifle or more rarely an M-1. I have shot the M-16 in USMC competition and before that carried an M-14 for three months in the boonies of Fort Sill, and I can tell you the '14 was a great rifle, and still is. Anyone stating otherwise has not used it under military conditions. It will be with us for a while longer, Clinton notwithstanding.

Posted by: Griff Murphey at August 24, 2007 07:29 AM


Trained in the mountains of Bosnia in 1998 in Glamoc with Rangers. Only thing I have to say is one shot, one kill. Repeated fire and no cover and concealment will get you killed. First rule of sniping.

Posted by: SPC RESENDEZ US ARMY at August 24, 2007 04:38 AM


An M1 Garand is THE KING, however, His Majesty's Prince, the M14, does better in the Modern World. After all, 20 is better than eight. While the Garand can split a hair at a thousand yards, the M14 can split a skull at the same distance. The former I'd use on the target range, the latter I've used in war.

Posted by: 10-10 Strike at August 24, 2007 01:53 AM


I was a left-handed sniper and used the sniper version of the M-14. Excellent tool. Personally, I would prefer more power. You just have to look at the task at hand. Are you hunting the enemy where they are safe? Or are you providing overwatch support? Fast multi shots get you killed if you are out hunting. But quick follow ups are essential when providing assistance to friendlies. Let the trigger-puller choose his own brand of death for his mission at hand. He is the professional.

Posted by: caveman60 at August 24, 2007 01:36 AM


I have just read through about 90% of the comments and have come to some conclusions.
1. Most are trying to mix apples and oranges. Assault rifel and Snipper rifel. It would be nice if the assault rifel had extreme accuracy but is it necessary? Does every snipper rifel need to be a rapid fire device?
2. What year is this? Seems to me so many conclusions were drawn from experience from 40 years ago. Haven't there been any advances since then. I guess none the Springfield users are still around to want to bring it back.

Posted by: Paul F. Gabriel at August 24, 2007 01:33 AM


I was a Scout/Sniper in Iraq all of 2004. I was surprised at the number of M14s (M1A1)that suddenly showed up, I was torn between the M14 or my issued M-24. When I get to go to the sandbox again I will have both and maybe the new kid on the block also, can never have enough tools!, more ammo is always top of my list. No Remorse...I Decide!

Posted by: Sandman at August 24, 2007 12:50 AM


7.62X51 or 5.56mm doesn't mater as some idiot will decide that it is lethal to the bad guy and decide on a non-lethal method of sniping. You know, like a super high powered 5.56mm pellet gun so he will get a nasty sting. You know how the liberals are, don't want to really harm your enemy, you might need them the next time a Republican takes office.

Posted by: BADSAM56 at August 24, 2007 12:33 AM


Iqualified with the M-1 Carbine , m_1 Granad,M-14and the M-16 The one I found the toughest was the old M-1 Garand and a hellava Sniper Rifle, but I guess time goes on when are they going to bring in the Ray Guns?

Posted by: Steve at August 23, 2007 10:24 PM


I used and appreciated the M-14. Knowing its power and accuracy gave me a lot of confidence in some hairy situations. By the way, the guy on the other end of the barrel appreciated what it could do too.

Posted by: Ed at August 23, 2007 10:20 PM


I was a sniper during the Viet Nam war in the 1st infantry Division. The XM21 was a great sniper rifle it is not like the M14 that every one knows. The stock was glass beaded in made for one movement of the rifle. It was also a match quality rifle and used match ammo. You could use a starlight scope at night or we used 3x9 redfield scopes with range finder in day. Most of my shots were taken at night. Don't count this weapon short. The-Ghost

Posted by: The-Ghost at August 23, 2007 10:17 PM


I use this weapon(m-14), When I was in NAM from 1967-72.This weapon was so reliable, That I was the only person that could the job that nobody in my outfit could do. We were called the "SEARCH & DESTROY "team. For this weapon, all I needed was a magazine with 20 rds to do the job. If i had to do it all over again, I would with an M-14 by my side.

Posted by: Tunnel Rat at August 23, 2007 10:14 PM


I qualified expert with both M16 and M14 when I served . Both are fine weapons but the M14 was a dream on those 1000 meter target.

Posted by: Joe at August 23, 2007 10:12 PM


Why not just go to the new 50 cal instead??

Posted by: NJ at August 23, 2007 10:04 PM


OK, I'm confused. The article is about the new sniper rifle or the old one? What is the new sniper rifle? all the article seems to talk about is the MK11 M24 and the M14.

Posted by: john at August 23, 2007 09:48 PM


I can't imagine why anyone could be sentimental about the M14. It was, and is, an inferior infantry weapon foisted on the Army by procurement people who refused to consider anything that "wasn't invented here." It is a heavy, badly designed retread of the M1 Garand with a stock that is totally unsuitable for accurate automatic fire. The Belgian FN, which came in service at about the same time and which the Army could have adopted if the folks in the Pentagon had had their wits about them, beat it hands down in every respect. Can anyone forget watching rounds dropping lower and lower as the plug in the gas cylinder unscrewed itself?

Posted by: Basil at August 23, 2007 09:45 PM


In 1963 the m-14 was what I trained on and it was easy to break down as well as reload. It could go through a tree and make the kill.The m-16 was what was issued in vietnam. It was a piece of junk that had to be kept in a bag when not firing it. It had no stopping power up close and the bullet never tumbled up close.The ak-47 had real stopping power and was a formiddable weapon.

Posted by: robin harrison at August 23, 2007 09:09 PM


Drafted in 1966.Trained on the M-14. Issued a M-14A2 in Germany. Too heavy on the trigger on full automatic(20 round magazine didn't last long enough. Absolutely loved the weapon.Requalified as an expert rifleman. Never used an M-16 so I can't compare.

Posted by: Woody at August 23, 2007 08:54 PM


Remember the M-21? I found it to be an excellent weapon combined with the Leatherwood sight. I left the Army in 1982, so a lot has changed, but the characteristics of that weapon always fit me well.

Posted by: greenberet at August 23, 2007 08:47 PM


Re: comments on the M16-A3.

The 55 grain 5.56 when fired at 3250 fps in a 1 in 14" twist barrel was an absolute positive killer, and a very terrible wounder of a bullet.

When demands were made for more accuracy (USMC), and more armor penetration (everyone), the twist of the rifling was, in stages, increased to where it is now.

Accuracy improved, but lethality went right down the tubes.

The USMC wants a target grade rifle, and should be allowed to have one, but the M16 was designed as a close to medium range assault rifle, and in that role, was extremely effective. Also, the M-16 was designed as a weapon system (certain cartridge with a certain weight bullet at a certain velocity, certain length barrel with a certain twist of rifling.

The changing, by various organizations of these various elements ruined the original concept, and now we have the M-4, which is a VERY poor excuse for what the M-16 originally was.

Why, oh why, do we never remember the lessons learned of past warriors?

Posted by: Larry at August 23, 2007 08:41 PM


No question about it, the M-14 wins hands down. For the Clinton administration to destroy quite a few of these rifles should be a crime. The 308 round is for killing people. The 5.56 mm is for varmint hunting. M-24 system works well and should be kept around for special situations also. Marine to news reporter in Afghanistan, Marine what did you feel when you shot those people with that 50 cal barrett sniper rifle, well sir, RECOIL... Get Some....

Posted by: Jake Montana at August 23, 2007 08:40 PM


It apears that the Army has intigrated what we in the Marines were issued just a few years ago (M16-A3) I was trained on it and used it in the Zaidon/Fallujah area in Iraq. The M16-A3 is a superb weapon. It incompasses a 5.56 match-grade rifling, with a free-floating barrel. 3x9 adjustable scope and flip-up front and rear sights, and a detachablr supressor. It is highly accurate to aprox. 800 meters. My only complaint, is it's 5.56 round. Anyone who has ever shot someone with this round knows that it isn't always "one shot, one kill" if the round doesn't hit a bone, it typically passes right through a person without tumbling. With an insurgent cracked out on drugs, they sometimes DON'T EVEN FEEL IT !!! I would highly recommend moving to the highly talked about in the SOCOM community, the 6.8mm round. In an urban enviroment, it is also imprortant to be able to have constant fire, so a magazine fed semi automatic sniping rifle is (in my opinion) awsome. I think this is an amazing piece of gear, but shouldn't be a main rifle when sniping. It is freat for a spotters main rifle. The sniper shoild carry the M40-A3 or A1 and his M4. I know that the M40-A3 is crazy heavy, but common, your not clearing buildings with it or running up and down the streets of Iraq, we are talking about a sniping hide.

Posted by: SEAN STEEL at August 23, 2007 08:24 PM


Mr.Garand's rifle was what I was issued. Never saw a M14 and had to wear an "Ike jacket"
Still don't care for the "mouse gun"

Posted by: john at August 23, 2007 08:17 PM


lets face it 5.56 is for shooting Crows and does a good job of it too...... but 308 or 7.62X51 is for killing people that is what they told us in Basic training at Ft. Len wood 1968 " this is the M-14 Battle rifle it is not for killing Deer or Elk it is for killing People and we are going to make sure you are real good at that befor you leave here" MSG Farrell A-5-2 BCT 1968 and it has lived up to it's name. give me an M-14 & a .45 1911A1 any time...... try to hide from me!!!!

Posted by: Russell at August 23, 2007 08:12 PM


I trained with the M14 in 64 and used it much there after. To heavy for regular work but ok for a sniper rifle, Ha. It was and still is the best rifle ever build for fighting. I weighed 143lbs and it wasn't to heavy for me. Only saw onw guy that could shoot it in full auto and the muzzle was swinging my way then. The M14 is the best rifle ever made by this or any other country. Just wish I could own one like it. GHOST

Posted by: JAMES W OSBORNE at August 23, 2007 08:11 PM


Having used the M-60, M-14 and the M-16 I would take the extra weight anyday of the 14 over the 16. I qualified sharp shooter on a M-14 and only marksman on a M-16. The M-60 is just pure fun. I have also shot the 50 Cal ship mounted and it was definately instant joy. I have never fired a 50 cal sniper rifle, but would love to.

Posted by: Carl at August 23, 2007 07:41 PM


The M-16 shouldn't be included in comments about a sniper rifle. The M-14 and its ammunition were too heavy for use in the field when the M-16 was available. The M-14 and bipod were a superior sniper combination.
I used them both in Vietnam, but for different purposes.

Posted by: David at August 23, 2007 07:31 PM


SO WHATS THE NEW ONE????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: DAVE M at August 23, 2007 07:30 PM


THE BARRETT IS KING 2000+meters yea!

Posted by: sgh at August 23, 2007 07:21 PM


The M-14 is one of the very best guns I have ever been trained with, glad to see some one else likes it.....it is like an old Chevy pick up.....allways ready to get the job done! I was trained with one in 1968 and had one assigned to me while in Korea in 69 & 70 I was glad to carry it any where.

Posted by: Russell at August 23, 2007 07:17 PM


7.62 is GREAT BULLET BUT IT IS SLOW leave the long burns to shorter rounds with more powder. Kill shots uncontained and not behind something are left best with the 5's and not the 7's. how many would rather see the 1500y shots over a 400 y shot??? nuff said... leave 50 cals to do their biz.

Posted by: vet smith at August 23, 2007 07:11 PM


7.62 is GREAT BULLET BUT IT IS SLOW leave the long burns to shorter rounds with more powder. Kill shots uncontained and not behind something are left best with the 5's and not the 7's. how many would rather see the 1500y shots over a 400 y shot??? nuff said... leave 50 cals to do their biz.

Posted by: vet at August 23, 2007 07:10 PM


I...Want...One!!!

Posted by: Geometric1 at August 23, 2007 06:56 PM


I say the Barratt 50 cal. seams to be a grand single shot "takem out" round, plus a nice sound
for all the rag heads.

Posted by: Ed Wolfe at August 23, 2007 06:46 PM


7.62x51 is a suitable sniper rifle round, but only in it's heavier bullet weights.

An alternative that makes tremendous sense as a general use/sniper round is the Alexander Arms 6.5 Grendel.

The ballistics of this round show it to be a superior long range round to the 7.62x51, while being lighter in weight, .5 inch shorter than the 7.62x51 (shorter receiver=stiffer receiver=more accuracy), all with much less recoil than the 7.62x51.

All in all, a great answer to the question of a new round for our services, but it seems that, after much talk, the question has been removed from the discussion.

Ah, well....

Posted by: Larry at August 23, 2007 06:39 PM


I don't understand why the politicians have interfered with the US Army's development of the XM8 family of weapons in 2005. They are far superior to anything out there. Firing 50,000 rounds auto without a miafire or cleaning. Google xm8 rifle and check it out for yourself. I suspect that payoffs from the M16/m14 industry is why the xm8 rifle has been shelved.

Posted by: Curtis at August 23, 2007 06:36 PM


Hard to beat the "old" M-14. They (US Army) took mine in 1968, and gave me some kinda plastic "toy gun". First issue M-16's where trash. Today's are 1000% better. Thing is, the M-14 was heavy, but would ALWAYS get the job done. Hard to hide from that 7.62X51 also. Still one of the best that has been issued to our troops.

Posted by: surfrider545 at August 23, 2007 06:36 PM


Awww the good old m14:)With all do respect guys, the m14s you received in basic are no where near what we are shooting today. Yes the bolt is the same, but the gun is a lot lighter and we have optics baby!(not the wood blah blah). To say I do not know why we ever took them out of service is not fulling seeing the picture. We are stripping the old m14s and building them from the bolt up. We are improving accuracy and making them much more lethal people!:)

Death to any RagHead that wants me dead!

Posted by: AnointedSword at August 23, 2007 06:34 PM


All comments worth merit. However, it is caliber that punches through or makes it to target. 7.62 is pretty good rd. "Target" doesn't know (or, appreciate)if fired through cannon, rifle, handgun, or PVC pipe. We need rd. of larger caliber and bullet weight, than 5.56. to "stop" the targets. Multiple 5.56 doesn't seem to cut it. Most states ban use of .22 caliber for deer hunting.

Posted by: JP at August 23, 2007 06:26 PM


Having experience with both the modified Garand design M14 & later M1A/Socom-16 AS WELL as the Stoner design M16 (which was, is, & always will be a "Matty Mattel POS"), I applaud the Army's selection of the 7.62x51 round. However, I'm appalled that they chose to go with the problematical (PROVEN over & over) "long gas system operation) design of this rifle. While this is to be a "sniper rifle" rather than standard infantry issue, the DIRTY ACTION qualities inherent in the Stoner design will show up in this weapon as well. War is a very dirty business, and the current environments with their dust & sand are hell on this type weapon. Army shoots themselves in the foot again, literally. A gas piston system such as seen in the M14/M1A Battle Rifles is much less prone to failure in harsh environments, done BTDT. The bean counters & bureaucrats never learn..of course $$$ & politics also plays a BIG part of all this! Aaarrgghhh!

Posted by: Old Marine at August 23, 2007 06:14 PM


Can you imagine having a friendly rifle, such as these, on Iwo Jima?
My big beef is: At 80 years of age I still read newspapers that give us the "score" on the numbers killed each day, plus, making an interesting story of one that is killed from our area. WTF are they thinking?

Posted by: Bob Shy at August 23, 2007 06:12 PM


The Marines have settled on the M-40 as their standard Long Range suppression rifle. But then they are the Masters of one shot, One Kill. The Army is still into spray and pray. You notice in the article no one letter is used to mention the Barrett M107. That sucker, which is Semi Auto kicks towelhead butt. The main reason the Army is looking at the Stoner is it's basic layout is the same as the AR series, be it the 16, ot the M-4. The Army was worried that soldiers would have a hard time translating from bolt action to the AR. Grunts have no problem, Seals have no problem, just the Army. According to the bigwigs. I think they sell the Doggies far too short.
BTW, My favorite has to be the M63 Stoner, carbine, rifle, automatic weapon, all in one handy package. HOOYAH!

Posted by: Bill Wa at August 23, 2007 06:11 PM


C'mon people...the Army needs another excuse to standardize the ammo in its rifle squads. That being said, the M-14 will continue to be used by units that KNOW its capabilities and respect them.
Bolt action .30-06 sniper rifles AND the .50 caliber long arm ALL have their place in a combat zone. As long as Achmed or Nguyen use their AK-47's with a "spray and pray" approach under 500 meters from windows, doors, vehicles and mosques, ALL these venerable weapon systems will be needed for years to come.
For the life of me, as a 'Nam vent REMF and a combat medic attached to the 1st ID in Desert Storm, I cannot believe the M-14 should have EVER been taken out of a standard infantry platoon's MTO&E. Its just too valuable for laying down lethal suppressive fire either in the open at longer distances than 250 meters or in an urban environment where its abilities are legendary.

Posted by: SSG Yankee Medic at August 23, 2007 06:08 PM


Being issued an M-14 at Parris Island during recruit training August 1968, 1st Bn. we learned that rifle inside and out, it was like a family member. True it was heavy compared to the M-16 but being well trained on the range it was awesome. The famous words we were told like "Point of aim point of impact" so very true and remember it like it was yesterday. The only time I came in contact with an M-16 was during ITR and was never issued one till 1973 at serving at Quantico. During my time at Quantico I was a member on the shooting team where we used a match M-14 firing from 200, 300, 500 and 1000 yards. If I were called upon again give me the M-14, I would feel right at home with it. On another point it looked and fitted in with the manual of arms much better than M-16, but bottom line to each there own.

Posted by: John Stegkemper at August 23, 2007 06:06 PM


Was lucky enough to have all of these in my team in Iraq. 50. cal,M14,and Remington. Like the Rem. makes me feel like im back home hunting-big fan. The M14 is very dependable and much lighter which is always nice! But you can't go wrong with the Big B 50.Cal great for reaching out and touching something as long as it isn't jamming from the heavy load in the mag.

Posted by: J Duke at August 23, 2007 06:05 PM


I was in Nam 68-69 US ARMY and had a M-14. Never had the 16. Did all my trainning with the 14 shot expect with it, and till this day still love it. I have a Springfield M1A1 and it still reminds me of my 14. Maybe with all of us writing maybe the Army will go out and buy the civil verison of the 14.. I tryed a auto when in Nam it was not very good hard to hold but semi what a deadly weapon.

Posted by: cobrahd1999 at August 23, 2007 06:03 PM


"Why cant you install a bottom ejection port instead of side ejection. What about designing something to catch the rounds?"

Brass catchers are rarely needed and--if they are--it would be simple enough to rig one capable of quickly attaching and detaching to a Picatinny rail. Beyond collecting brass to recycle, downward ejection is useful for left-handed operation... something quite doable with an M16A2 or this rifle without modification.

For those rueing the demise of the M14...

There are few service members today that have even held, let alone fired an M14. When I enlisted in 1990--17 and a half years ago--M14's were pretty well gone. This weapon and other variations of the M16-design take advantage of years of training and familiarity with this system that most soldiers do not have with an M14. Additionally, with compensation for a more precise weapon requiring cleaning more often, the M16-series brings many advantages to the table in the realm of ergonomics and modularity.

For example, those asking why we haven't done better in the last 50 years...

With an M16A4, you have the ability to effectively engage targets at almost any range the M1 Garand or M14 could with lower weight. Additionally, you can add sites, lights, and optics that allows the same rifle to function in a precision role, a close combat role with short range optics, and a 24-hour a day weapon system that lets an infantryman engage targets in 100% no-light darkness. With a change in upper reciever or lower reciever, you can use the same basic training and operate everything from a submachinegun to a sniper rifle capable of longrange silenced firing at night... If you add the SR-25/M110 family, you add another caliber and added range. If you consider the Stoner SR-47 you add the capability to use AK magazines and ammunition.

And for those screaming about "Mattel stocks"...

...the M16A2/M16A4 butt stock is entirely sturdy enough to knock human teeth out and mangle jaws without breaking.

Those suggesting using the Barrett in lieu of the M110 may want to consider two points: 1. The M110 can function as it's own short range defensive weapon and doesn't require the shooter to be flat out prone to accurately engage. 2. This weapon is primarily employed at human targets and--at most employment ranges--there is no real advantage between an accurate shot by a .308 and an accurate shot by a .50. Extended ranges or targets of sturdier construction than humans, the loss of tactical mobility and increased load to carry a .50 may become worth it if direct fire is required.

Oh, and as to a QCB M16-based SAW... Armalite (in the '60's) and Colt have had those options since the advent of the design...

...the problem is that belt-feeds do better at handling large number of rounds quickly and with lower weight beyond the ammunition weight. (I.e. 200 round belt + box weighs less than two loaded Beta-C magazines.) However, I think the Ultimax Mk4 (being considered by the USMC) may be off interest in spite of using drums because of enhanced off-hand controllability and lower weight. Check it out.

Posted by: Deathbunny at August 23, 2007 06:01 PM


Do not forget that these weapons must be also used in hand to hand fighting and the M1/M14 are my choice since I have experience in Vietnam at hand to hand using a M16 stinks.

Posted by: Dewey Fambry at August 23, 2007 05:49 PM


I was never sent to 'Nam, spent my service time working stateside in a Hospital (yes, I was a lucky stiff) but I fired the M-14 in "Basic' because you wern't trained on an M-16 until you went to AIT. Qulaified Expert with the M-14 easily. Once it was sighted in it was very deadly to 400 or so yards with iron sights. Nice weapon.

Posted by: MarkJ at August 23, 2007 05:45 PM


From my point of view, the Marine M40A1 always had a place in my heart. I named my long distance carrier, AT&T.

Posted by: Bernie at August 23, 2007 05:35 PM


Just readin' all these here comments on the various types of Sniper rifles & everyones preferences,But look @ Carlos N. Hathcock The Second!!! I beleive He used the EVER-TRUSTY Remington Model 700 w/185gr. Boattail bullet and was "scoring hits" constantly @ 1500meters Plus using a 10x Unertel scope!!!

Posted by: J.Almas Jr. at August 23, 2007 05:29 PM


All of this seems funny to me. i carried a BAR for a long while, and in slow cyclic fire, it was, and still is the best long range weapon ever built until the came out with the 50 cal sniper rifle. a clean shot at a 1000 yards with the BAR was very doable by a qualified shooter. if i ever had to defend a fixed position, BAR is my choice. Just need a big guy to tote ammo.

Posted by: bob at August 23, 2007 05:23 PM


Reminds me of re-inventing the wheel. The .03, M1 Garand and the M14 all had something in common, .30 cal. 168 grains of kick ass, accuracy, dependability and soldier confidence. Not to mention a respectable looking rifle to do the Manual of Arms. There was no doubt about the results down range. So let's say thank God for the resurection of "Mr. common sense," I was sure he was dead and buried. Now all we need is a good .45 cal. side are. Maybe someone will re-invent one.

Posted by: James Pogue at August 23, 2007 05:20 PM


Having entered the Marine Corp in early 1966, I was trained on the M-14 and was issued one in RVN as a member of HMM-262 and was so impressed with the rifle and caliber (as all Marines were) that I use the same caliber to this day as my main hunting caliber. It is very consistant in accuracy and I would stake my life on this fact alone. I was not afraid of the weight factor in RVN and carried 12 magazines and 6 bandoleers of ammo when I went flying all because I wanted something I stood a chance to fight my way out if shot down in hostile country. An M-16 ? I can remember hauling back plane loads of jammed M-16s and bodies of the Marines that were using them. Also witnessing the M-16s jamming while fam firing off the deck of an LPH at high seas where dust and dirt weren't a problem. The M-14 is better than a great battle rifle as is the AK-47 is an assault rifle.

Posted by: wayne placker at August 23, 2007 05:18 PM


The M14 will always be my 3rd love(the first being my wife of 25 years, Wanda Sue and the second being my old hunting dog Jethro). I fell in love with this beauty back in the 'Nam. When I got back to the world, this baby aimed true through all the deer, rabbits, dogs and mexicans I hunted.

Go easy, friend

Posted by: Paul Brasch at August 23, 2007 05:10 PM


THIS NEW RIFLE THAT'S BEING ADOPTED AS A SNIPER RIFLE IN ALL THE HYPE THAT IT'S BEING GIVEN I HOPE IT LIVES UP TO EXSPECTATION. I WAS THE DATA PROCESSSING NON-COM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DATA COLLECTED DURING EXPERIMENT CODE NAMED (SAWS) WHICH STANDS FOR "SMALL ARMS WEAPONS SYSTEM" THE RESULTS OF THIS EXPERIMENT CAUSED THE ARMY TO ADOPT THE M-16 RIFLE WHICH HAD MANY PROBLEMS AT THE OUTSET. SO NOW THEY ARE BRINGING IN THIS NEW WEAPON, I HAVE ALWAYS SAID THE AK47 A COMMUNIST WEAPON WAS A FAR MORE SOPHISTICATED AND DURABLE WEAPON AND I SAID WE SHOULD RE-TOOL THIS WEAPON AND ADOPT IT.YOU CAN ALWAYS KNOW THAT WHEN NEW WEAPONS ARE BROUGHT IN SOME "HEAVY" LOBBYING WAS DONE AND SOMEONE GET'S PAID TO SEE THAT NEW WEAPONS ARE ADOPTED,WHEN A WEAPON FIRES A 7.62 CARTILEDGE THE ONY EFFECT IT HAS ON TARGET IS AT THE MAXIUM ORDINANCE (END OF FLIGHT" IT TUMBLES AND CAUSES HEAVY DAMAGE TO IT'S TARGET,SO ALL I CAN SAY IS I HOPE THIS NEW SNIPER RIFLE DOES THE JOB AFTER ALL OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN DESERVES THE "BEST".

Posted by: JOSEPH DIGGS at August 23, 2007 04:49 PM


I am sad to see a great weapon such as the M14 be put in the rear with all the rest of the gear.
I have worked with all kinds of 7.62 weapons in my life in Viet Nam and as a federal agent. The m-14 is not unlike the M2 in that it is and always will be the answer to a long range issue. I will go against any of the new toy's with a M14 any time any place. Good Luck and God bless.

Posted by: Dave Shannon at August 23, 2007 04:47 PM


I graduated Parris Island in 1967 as the outstanding man of my platoon with a set of dress blues, a PFC stripe and a trophy for being high shooter of the entire battalion 229 out of 250. I owe it all to the fabulous accuracy of the M-14 rifle. It broke my heart when I got to Pendleton prior to deployment to Viet-Nam when they came into our squadbay, scooped up all of our M-14's and handed us McNamara's piece of shit Colt Mickey Mouse Mattel Plastic no balls M16A1. That rifle was shoved down our throats and is directly responsible for the deaths of many fine Marines. Then to read in this story M-14 rifles in storage were DESTROYED during the Clinton years or given away to third world countries makes my blood boil. At least with this weapon if you run out of ammo you could beat the hell out of the enemy and maybe get a stick or two in with a frimly affixed bayonet. The M16 and it's bastard stepchild the "improved" M16A2 was and still is a substandard hard to maintain rifle prone to malfunctions at the worse possible time. Not to mention it's pussy ass .233 round. The fact that our troops are still using the M16 in combat is criminal.

Posted by: Jim at August 23, 2007 04:44 PM


I don't think that blending in was the issue. The war they are speaking of is terrorism, not the old jungle, or shooting from a hidden and quit location. I believe the intention is to hit a bad guy on the top if a building, not taking out a president or whoever the conspiracy theorists have done in the past.

I believe the author is saying that the one-shot-one-kill is not what they are expecting, but to make sure they are dead and get the next bad guy. I always wondered why the single shot was chosen and reading the article and your excellent responses I now know.

Posted by: Lorenzo B, SSG. at August 23, 2007 04:38 PM


In 1965 I went to Vietnam with a full auto M-14, I much preferred carrying a .45 grease gun

Posted by: Greg V. at August 23, 2007 04:20 PM


My first training weapon was the M14 and since there has been but two weapons in my book, M14 & 1911-45 side arm.

Posted by: Allan at August 23, 2007 04:15 PM


Good Morning Folks,

Like many of you I also was in the pre M-16 military and qualified on the M-14 and the M-14E2. They were good rifles but did have their flaws especially the E2 varient that loved to bust firing pins.

The M-14 is 1930's technology up dated in the early 1950's. It was good but time has made it obsolute. The weapons currently in use in Iraq are nearly 50 years old and are showing their age unfortunely. But ther is a solution at hand, the Springfield M1A1 and it varients.

The M1A1 cosmeticaly is an M-14 but don't believe it the same rifle. From the flash surpessor to the butt plate it has changed. Out of the box this weapon has a 1MOA accuracy that supresses the best of the M-14/M-21's of an earlier era. The shorter verson called the "Scout" with a 16" barrel also excees the accuracy of the origional M-14. The short barrel "Scout" would make an excellent choice for a "Squad Designated marksman" who finds him/herself having to often fight from a vehicle.

For a 500 meter (urban combat that's all you need) "sniper rifle" the M1A1 has it all, semi auto (a quick second, third etc. shot), accurate, easy to train on and is very customizeable, but the really great thing about the M1A1 is its price starting at under $1,200.00 RETAIL. Assuming the Government would purchase this weapon in dealer quanities you could shave 30-40% off that retail price. That makes the M1A1 about third the price of the recently contracted for M4A1's and at it's least twice the rifle.

User customized options and third party accessories incluse at least four trigger (both single and double stage from 2.5lbs. trigger pull to where ever you want it) groups, many varients of the M1913 rail system, optical sights, scopes and night vision sights etc.

Combine the M1A1 with Black Hills 165gr. bullet, that is already standard food for the Marines M-24, you have a first rate killing machine.

Again an answer to the problem is right before the military's eyes and they can see it.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at August 23, 2007 12:49 PM


I'm formerly an m-14 USMC shooter, having qualified at Quantico at 200 yds with windage sights. I'm looking for a modified m-14 mentioned above for practicing longer shots up to a mile.

Posted by: Tom at August 23, 2007 12:10 PM


THE M-14 IS AN EXCELLENT WEAPON,WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS;THIS WILL BE AN EXCELLENT SNIPER RIFLE.I REMEMBER THE M-14 FROM THE NAM DAYS.

Posted by: DOUGLAS WELCH at August 23, 2007 10:03 AM


Let me see...this is all we can come up with? What the Marines need is a semi-auto 300 win mag, with a 20 round magazine, gas operated, and similar in looks to the m16 with the exception of a fluted barrel, rail systems, and an adjustable stock for length and comb. I have a 700 Sendero in 300 win mag and it's a bad boy (7.62 = not so good trajectory and stopping power). I have a 4-14 Springfield Armory mil dot scope with illumination on it and if it moves it dies. Sepmer Fi and stay safe out there.

Posted by: SSGT X at August 23, 2007 09:58 AM


After staking my life on the M21 for 12 months in RVN. Then retiring in the late 70. Returning to work for the DOD in the early 9os and finding the army had throwen away 20 years of technoligy for a bolt action rifle (M24), I wondered if the bean counters had struck again.

Posted by: Earl Waterman E-7 ret. at August 23, 2007 07:10 AM


IF WE NEED A SNIPER RIFLE FOR SPECIAL OPS. WHY NOT CONSIDER THE BARRETT RIFLE SEMI AUTO VERSION
OR THE BOLT ACTION TYPE. THESE RIFLES HAVE THE
CAPACITY TO TAKE OUT THE TARGET AT LEAST A MILE
AWAY. SO WHY NOT CHECK OUT THESE RIFLES? BECAUSE OUR WARFIGHTERS NEED THE VERY BEST THAT
WE CAN GET TO THEM, SO THAT THEY CAN DO THEIR JOB GOOD.
RESPECTFULLY
STEVE HILTON
US NAVY VIETNAM VETERAN

Posted by: STEVE HILTON at August 23, 2007 07:04 AM


Points well taken deathbunny.

It's funny that we finally accepted the rifle that was given to the DOD in the middle 50's and rejected.

Accepted only 50+ years later.

In retrospect it's like using a bolt action sniper rifle for combat in Nam....oh wait, we did.

Then what's my point?

Oh, yeah, ummmmm.......can't we come up with something better in 50 years?

I guess we should just be happy we finally have something that works really well and like a comment earlier, it does alert the enemy that a specialist is with the team.

Now if we can just get a better SAW. I can't see why we can't use the m-16 action with a quick change barrel and a Beta C mag. Who needs links on a pea shooter.

Posted by: Big Daddy at August 22, 2007 11:53 PM


Why cant you install a bottom ejection port instead of side ejection. What about designing something to catch the rounds?

Posted by: jake at August 22, 2007 09:04 PM


"Why did they not take it one step further and use a piston?"

Why use a piston on a rifle optimized for accuracy? The disadvantage of straight gas is needing to clean the reciever more often, but this is a sniper rifle and not cleaning it often enough will likely kill the accuracy before resulting in a major decrease in reliability...

"hy is there no gas block to make the weapon a one shot super quiet one with the suppressor?"

Why? Firing a single shot does not usually result in being able to pinpoint a sniper. Firing multiple shots does. Having a silenced single shot weapon adds weight and complexity without much benefit. Being able to fire multiple times rapidly and be able to avoid detection has a much greater value...

...worth the cost.

"No adjustable stock?"

The M110 has an adjustable length stock and butt plate.

"A bare bones ultra expensive sniper rifle?"

A very accurate semiautomatic sniper rifle fully accessorizable with sound suppressor and almost any form of optic in the inventory including thermal weapon sights.

"We could have done better as usual but at least they gave us something."

Wow.

Really?

"i am curious is it no possible to build a rifle that can switch between gas powered semi automatic and bolt action? seem all you would have to do is move the charging handle onto the bolt and make it so it locks down into a notch."

Can it?

Yes.

Why would you want to?

First, the system, as is, is as accurate or more so than most bolt action sniper rifles.

Second, there is little need to add complexity to the system without some tangible benefit.

Third, the only reasons I can think of for using a single shot over a semiauto (that is the same accuracy)are:

1. The shooter lacks discipline. Which is also nonconducive to long range accuracy.

2. The shooter is using a silenced weapon where others are listening from close renge in a quiet environment. (Reduces noise from the action cycling). At which point you need to ask yourself why you are using a sniper rifle...

3. To retain cartridge casings and avoid leaving evidence. Which opens an entirely new can of worms...

I get the impression that some of the posters have little grasp on what the point to this weapon is and are expecting a 1-for-1 replacement in kind with no change in capabilities to the bolt action rifles already in service. Frankly, it's a little hard to understand why anyone would want to...

Posted by: Deathbunny at August 22, 2007 06:58 PM


I hope we don't have a problem in the future with the use of the gas system.

Why did they not take it one step further and use a piston?

Why is there no gas block to make the weapon a one shot super quiet one with the suppressor?

No adjustable stock?

A bare bones ultra expensive sniper rifle?

We could have done better as usual but at least they gave us something.

Posted by: Big Daddy at August 22, 2007 01:26 PM


i am curious is it no possible to build a rifle that can switch between gas powered semi automatic and bolt action? seem all you would have to do is move the charging handle onto the bolt and make it so it locks down into a notch.

Posted by: slntax at August 22, 2007 06:20 AM


SALZ: Good points on the blending in, and getting this out to the field.

If the M110 proves out, we should consider taking it further. An SR-25/Mk 11/M110/AR-10 variant might be a good fit for any situation where 5.56mm doesn't fit the task at hand. IIRC, there's some parts commonality with the M-16 series, and the manual of arms should be pretty much identical. 7.62 NATO's already in the pipeline; WCS, you can de-link GPMG rounds. Anyone who shoots Expert with an M-4 or -16 might be able to make its big brother thump and dump 'em.

Might also make for a good alternative to changing standard issue rifles or calibers. A lot of people like the 6.8 Remington SPC, 6.5 Grendel or SSK (or, different launchers for same), and they're all impressive on paper. But they're still paper athletes, compared to 7.62 NATO.

Apart from sniper duty, something like this just might make for the better battle rifle that some folks have deemed necessary.

Posted by: demophilus at August 22, 2007 02:01 AM


Hopefully they will not take the M-14 out of service until sufficent M110s have been fielded.

Posted by: Sam Adams at August 22, 2007 01:31 AM


My Troop used both the M14 and SR-25 in Iraq during OIF II. Both systems did what they were intended to do, provided the Soldier on the trigger knew how to shoot. Both were easily capable of making 600-800 meter hits on the fly. The SR-25 has the ability to blend in with the rest of the patrol and not announce the presence of a specialized Soldier, where the M14 pretty much announced your intentions or pointed you out among the crowd. The issue now is to get more of both systems out to the force.

Posted by: SALZ at August 21, 2007 10:12 PM


'69-'71 lordy, how I loved my M-14!

semper fidelis

Posted by: campbell at August 21, 2007 09:35 PM


Quick summary of the srtivle: the new sniper rifle is the M110, made by Knight's Armament Company, and is a descendant of the AR-10. Single fire only, but with a 20 round clip. It averaged a 0.65 MOA in testing. Nice.

Posted by: bespoke at August 21, 2007 07:37 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.