Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008

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
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
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
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

War Spurs Change in Sniper Gear, Tactics

snipers.jpg

From the headlines at Military.com...

The conflicts stemming from the attacks on 9/11 showed America's military snipers were badly in need of modernization. Their gear, operational doctrine and training needed an update -- and fast. As the war evolved, units with combat experience shared lessons learned, identifying new requirements for a unique conflict. Fortunately the services took notice and began to revamp the sniper community in numerous ways.

Problem: Inadequate/outdated doctrine.

Solution: Small-unit leaders began to develop employment strategies that earlier training never covered, based on the current situation and environment. This, coupled with after-action reports, lessons learned and the general sharing of information, led to comprehensive sniper planning, support and employment-things like providing security for the sniper team during movement and relying on the sniper to provide the real-time intelligence for on-the-spot combat decisions.

Probably the biggest change was when-and-how to bring the snipers to bear for the desired result. Unit leaders learned that snipers could control large areas, create enemy reluctance and force enemy movement in a desired direction. There was a gradual recognition of how valuable assets like snipers and designated marksmen could be when properly utilized.

Problem: Inadequate equipment.

Solution: A number of commercially procured items became popular, including the Eberlestock pack, which allows the sniper to carry his rifle on his back protected and concealed while he carries a battle rifle for his own protection during movement. Other items such as rests, tripods and various bipods were procured to meet the varied terrain and conditions.

The issued spotting scope and tripod did not perform as needed in environments where ranges were either very long or very short, and precise optical definition was an absolute requirement for friend-or-foe identification. High-end spotting scopes such as the Leupold 12-40x60mm Mark 4, Zeiss 85mm, and Swarovski ATS 80's were quickly procured along with better quality tripods/mounts. Hydration systems, too, became a crucial ingredient in the sniper's pack.

The sniper of today is vastly better outfitted than he was six years ago. Individual and organizational efforts outside of official channels to provide free equipment/gear to snipers played a huge role in sniper evolution as well. Groups such as "Adopt a Sniper" (www.AmericanSnipers.org) collected and pushed large quantities of equipment to operators in the war zone and provided a conduit for specific requests from the field. In most cases the equipment was donated by industry or provided at a huge discount.

Problem: Inadequate optical sights.

Solution: Early on the word went out to procure optics for a variety of uses from crew-served weapons to M4 carbines. Many snipers purchased or procured variable-power optics for use on their sniper systems to allow them to open up their field of view while retaining the zoom capabilities.

In other cases higher-power optics were procured to allow the snipers to engage at extended ranges. The Marine Corps was in the process of selecting the Schmidt & Bender PMII (a.k.a. M8541), which has proved to be an outstanding product. Many Army units procured the Leupold Mark 4 M3 LR/T 3.5-10X as a replacement for the fixed 10X Leupold M3 "Ultra." Many other optics companies such as U.S. Optics and Nightforce saw increased sales of their products in an effort by the military to meet field requirements.

The acquisition of new optics also opened up the need or desire for mission-enhancing accessories. Devices such as the "angle cosine indicator" from Sniper Tools and a variety of mounting solutions like the Modular Accessory Rail System from Remington became popular and are now in widespread use.

In addition to the new optics, mounts and accessories, this new war brought interest in new reticule systems such as those offered by Horus Vision, Leupold, Nightforce and U.S. Optics, which provide different or enhanced approaches to range estimation, hold offs, elevation/windage changes and firing solutions.

Problem: A shortage of snipers and precision weapons.

Solution: Simple things such as adding an optic to an M4/M16, which previously had been considered "Hollywood," became the norm with the widespread purchase of the Trjicon ACOG. While not by itself a "sniper" system, units quickly discovered that troops with above-average shooting ability and snipers could extract a heavy toll on the enemy with such a system. It was this revelation that helped define the concept of the designated marksman - basically a soldier with slightly more training than the average grunt, equipped with an optically sighted rifle to engage targets at ranges the "typical" shooter could not.

Problem: Modernization of existing SWS (Sniper Weapons Systems.)

Solution: Around 2004, Remington introduced its M24A2 as an upgrade to the M24. This included a new stock, variable power optics, an optics rail that allows the use of in-line night vision IR lasers and a sound suppressor. While being very popular with the snipers, funding and authorization have never materialized. The U.S. Navy worked with Sage International to procure the Enhanced Battle Rifle, which is a modified M14 placed in an aluminum chassis that features multiple rails and a collapsible stock. They found this combination, although somewhat heavy, to be very effective. The Corps has conducted a variety of experiments with adding suppressors to their M40A3's but to date these suppressors are not in widespread use.

Problem: Rate of fire.

Solution: This problem gave rise to the development by the Army of the Semi-Automatic Sniper System solicitation. This effort was intended to procure a 7.62 semi-auto system that provided the accuracy of a bolt system in addition to the rapid firing capability of a semi. The Army eventually selected a system which they are now beginning to field in small quantities. The original concept was to replace all of the bolt-action systems with the new autoloading system. But it now appears that snipers need both capabilities. The USMC and USAF are currently reviewing the concept to determine which direction they will go.

Problem: Weight and the inability to engage targets at ranges beyond 1,000 meters.

Solution: Early solutions included the application of the .300 WinMag, but the availability of ammo was an issue. Many U.S. allies fielded systems chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum, which has gained considerable popularity among U.S. snipers. It remains unclear as to what direction this will take, as both industry and the services themselves are exploring alternatives.

The benefit of the current conflict in terms of equipment and technology development has been vast and modernization efforts in this area will likely continue. As in any war, necessity has been the mother of invention and snipers have never been as educated and well equipped as they are today.

-- Tactical Life

Comments

OK!That's OK!But if you need some AVI ripper for mac convertion softwares,please come in and take a closer look following link:[url=http://www.macaviconverters.com/]Mac AVI Converters[/url],
Mac AVI Converters,
AVI to MOV Converter for Mac,
AVI to iPod Converter for Mac,
AVI to MP4 Converterfor Mac,
AVI to 3GP Converter for Mac,
AVI to Apple TV for Mac,
AVI to M4V Converter for Mac,
AVI to MPG Converter for Mac,
AVI to iPhone for Mac,
AVI to DivX Converter for Mac

Posted by: angel at October 16, 2008 04:00 AM


Ptsfp,

I'm sure all snipers and indeed riflemen would prefer an automatic rifle with the long range accuracy of an M40. The only problem with that is that no one has been able to make such a rifle.

Horses for courses.

I have to say, nothing in here is a new idea. Marine Gunnery Sgt and sniper, Jack Coughlin, in his 2005 book 'Shooter' raised all these issues.

Posted by: Jim at October 12, 2008 09:23 PM


The article says that there is still a need for a bolt-action rifle, despite the use of 7.62x51mm semiautomatic rifles.

Posted by: Edward at October 12, 2008 02:51 AM


I don't get it. Its 2008, why can't we arm all our snipers with a non-bolt action sniper system that can double as a main battle rifle? Something like the M14 based systems. They would not even need an Eberlestock pack.

Bolt actions are great when you're hunting Elk out West, but Elk don't fire back. I can also see SWAT snipers using bolt actions, but the military?

I personally would much rather have one rifle that could work for long range and unexpected close range conflict, especially now when the combat is more urban based and unpredictable.


Posted by: Ptsfp at October 11, 2008 07:47 PM


IIRC, the new 6.5 Lapua is based on a 7.62 NATO case, or at least has similar dimensions. That might allow you to squeeze it into legacy 7.62 NATO platforms -- M24, M40, M14, M110, etc., etc.

I'm not saying it *should* be done, but it's a pretty interesting capability. Don't know that it would add much to the mix, but there it is.

Posted by: demophilus at October 10, 2008 02:36 PM


Wes,

The 6.5 is a great round but would pose a problem with ammo interchanging with allies. The .338 Lapua is a great round that is lighter than a .50 but heavy enough to do the job more effectively than a .308 (or .300 Win Mag, my favorite). I think the Grendel would be a great replacement for the standard 5.56 but don't see that happening. This is too bad as I have some experience firing the round and really like it.
Great article.

Posted by: Steve Coad at October 10, 2008 02:25 PM


Very interesting article. Wes, to answer your question as to whether one should or should not adopt the 6.5: please take into account that the 6.5 hype is very much a US debate. Other worldwide armed forces have widely adopted the .338, and for interoperability / logistics issues, this is now the way to go for heavy bolt action sniping. It is cumbersome, but also extremely accurate in an easy way up to 1000 yards. You can hit up to the same range with a .308 but it takes a very good shooter to do it with a cold barrel and repeatedly thereafter. Not so with a .338. And you can find factory loads that are really top notch, no need to bother with reloading if you don't want too (in a lot of countries, only top grade units actually encourage their shooters to try out their own loads operationnally, sad as it may sound).

Posted by: Marvel at October 10, 2008 01:59 PM


or as the new projectile in an LSAT-type telescoped/polymer cased round.

The 6.5 bullet is such an outstanding performer (low recoil/high retained velocity and energy) one wonders why they ever went out of fashion with military weapons designers.

Posted by: Wes at October 10, 2008 10:01 AM


The answer lies in the 6.5 caliber!

Either as an across-the-board adoption of the 6.5 Grendel as a do-it-all round (infantry/machine gun/sniper), or one of the more powerful 6.5's (Lapua, Creedmore, 260 Rem. etc) as a sniper round instead of the cumbersome .338 Lapua Magnum.

Posted by: Wes at October 10, 2008 09:57 AM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


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